Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORS.

Return ordered, "showing the numbers of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors on the Register of Electors for the United Kingdom which came into force on the 15th day of October, 1919 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 138, of Session 1919)."—[Major Baird.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL EXPENDITURE (NEW CONSTRUCTION).

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether no can state the total amount of contract or other liability in respect of new construction outstanding at the time of the Armistice in connection with which there has been a saving of £46,400,000 due to cancellations effected subsequent to the time of the Armistice?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The estimated total amount outstanding at the date of the Armistice on new construction and armaments therefore was £96,500,000. The saving by cancellations therefore amounted to nearly one-half of the total outstanding liability.
I should add that one of the main reasons why we continued the construction of the ships, not cancelled, was that they had reached such a stage in construction as to render it uneconomical to discontinue; and, further, that amongst the vessels under construction were many trawlers, drifters, tugs, and lighters, which it was obviously desirable to complete on account of their commercial value. In fact, we have realised already, by the sale of trawlers and drifters alone so completed, nearly £2,000,000.
The naval vessels proper which we continued since the Armistice are, of course, needed for naval requirements, and have enabled us to replace obsolete and obsolescent vessels by much more efficient types.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his answer. May I ask, arising out of that answer, on the general question of costs, whether he has been able to do anything by way of compliance with my request, addressed to the First Lord and himself, on the Navy Estimates when they were before the House, by way of a monthly return showing the reduction in the cost of the Navy to the nation; and will he, if he cannot give a complete return such as I suggested, at any rate give a return which will show one or two of the main items, such as that of the reduction of numbers, which is, after all, I think, one of the chief indices of reductions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Immediately the right hon. Gentleman made the suggestion I put it in a concrete form to the Department for their view as to its practicability. In certain respects it would be very difficult, and it might be misleading, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows. As regards the latter part a his question, as to whether we could select certain characteristic items of expenditure and prepare a return of those, which would not be misleading, probably, that I will consider very carefully and will communicate the result to my right hon. Friend.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can it be done during the Recess, without waiting for the House to meet again?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If it were considered by the proper authorities to be a practicable proposal, there is no reason why it should not be done at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORNISH TIN MINERS (STANDARD OF LIVING).

Mr. W. THORNE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Non-Ferrous Metals Act gives any power to regulate metal imports in such a way as to prevent the constant degradation of the standard of living of Cornish tin
miners and other classes of British nonferrous metal miners; can he state the present rates of wages paid to Chinese and other coolies in the tin mines of the Straits Settlements; is he aware that the average wage of the Cornish tin miner is only £8 or £9 per month, and that his earnings, despite skill, training, and ability, are considerably less than those of London dustmen and street. sweepers; and can he state the amount annually of the present production of tin in Cornwall and the total number of men at present employed in the industry, both underground and in and about?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918, to which the hon. Member apparently refers, does not give any power to regulate metal imports. I am informed that the present rates of pay in tin fields of the Straits Settlements are approxmately 2s. a day for unskilled labour and 5s. a day for skilled labour, and I understand that the average wage of the Cornish tin miner is approximately as stated in the question. At the present time the production of tin in Cornwall is at the rate of approximately 4,000 tons a year, and the total number of men employed is about 5,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — METAL MINES, CARDIGAN AND CORNWALL.

Mr. W. THORNE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether at various times in the last 100 years in the county of Cardigan over 260 metal mines have been in operation, and how many are working now; in Derbyshire over 194 mines in the production of lead ore, and how many are working now; in Cornwall as many as 259 mines for tin, lead, copper, and zinc, and how many are working now; whether in nine cases out of ten the cessation of the industry is due to the rent and royalty paid to landlords; whether the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee is inquiring into this aspect of the question; whether in their Report they will give reasons why the recommendations of the Mining Royalties Commission of 1893 were never adopted; what is the reason for holding the Non-Ferrous Metals Inquiry in secret and excluding the Press; and when may either their Report or an Interim Report with minutes of evidence to date be expected?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that the number of mines which have been worked in the last 100 years in Cardigan, Derbyshire, and Cornwall are approximately as stated, and that there are now working four mines in Cardigan, two in Derbyshire, and about fifty in Cornwall. The decline in the industry is due to a variety of causes now under investigation by a Departmental Committee which for some time has been taking evidence on three days of each week. I understand that the Committee decided that in view of the nature of the Inquiry it was advisable that its sittings should be private. I am unable to anticipate the contents of their Report, or to say when it will be presented, but the Committee are proceeding with the Inquiry as rapidly as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That Government Business be not interrupted this day at Five or half-past Five of the clock, and may be entered urn at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

AMENDING BILL PASSED.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move
That the Resolution of the Committee on Old Age Pensions may be considered this day us soon as it is reported from the Committee, and that the several stages of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may he proceeded with this day notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Consideration of such a Re-solution and between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance.
Those who were present at Question Time yesterday, when this subject was raised in the presence of the Prime Minister and myself, will, of course, understand the position. But for those who were not present I will try in a few sentences to point out what exactly is the position. As the House knows, there has been a good deal of interest taken both in this Parliament and the last in regard to the position of the old age pensioners, in view of the increased cost of living, with the result that a Departmental Committee was appointed which went fully into the question. It reported, and its Report was only published on the 12th of November. Immediately on receiving the Report, it was submitted to the Treasury for examination, and then, shortly afterwards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the Cabinet proposals based upon this Report. They were examined by the Cabinet, examined I may say sympathetically from the point of view of the old age pensioners, but with regard also to the state of the finances of the country. While the Cabinet came quite unhesitatingly to the decision that they could not adopt the recommendations of the Committee in full, on the other hand we came with equal decision to the view that some change must be made in the provision for these old age pensioners, and that in one way or another the scale must be increased from 5s., at which it. legally stood, or 7s. 6d., at which it stood by administrative act, to 10s. The object of this Bill is to carry out that decision. In order to have the matter thoroughly examined, and after the Cabinet had come to its decision on the general principle, a Committee was appointed to go into it, work out the details and draw up the Bill. It was only possible to produce that Bill
two days ago. I think the House will realise that on a subject of this importance and in the present state of the national finances, with all the pressure that exists on Government Departments, a delay of less than five weeks was not an undue delay, and therefore it was not the fault of the Government that we were not able to lay this proposal before tile House earlier.
Two days ago we had to decide whether or not we should ask the House of Commons to carry it before the close of this Session. The Cabinet Were unanimously of opinion that if that could be done it would be very desirable. We realised, however, the objections to taking such a step, and, finally, the Cabinet left it to me, as Leader of the House and responsible for its business for the time being, to decide whether or not we should be justified in asking the House to pass a Bill at this stage of the Session. With much hesitation, I confess, I came to the conclusion that I should not he justified in asking the House to do that I am going to speak quite frankly to the House. It is not merely a case of breaking down the Rules which are provided for ensuring reasonable care in regard to our ordinary legislation. It is not even a case of breaking down Rules to which the House of Commons has always attached particular importance in regard to money expenditure with a view of making certain that no expenditure of any kind should be incurred without proper consideration by the House of Commons. It was not merely these considerations which influenced me in coming to this decision; it was another feeling. The present state of our finances made it a matter of special importance. We all know, and every Member of the House of Commons feels, that the financial position of this country is one of the most vital subjects which can be dealt with either by the Government or by the House. We have therefore felt, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a specially strong view, that in any case of increased expenditure it should never be the action of the Government alone, but we wished the co-operation of the House of Commons all through in these financial proposals. It therefore seemed to me, on the whole, that I should not be justified in asking the House of Commons to pass a Bill which we thought was going to depart from the Rules on this subject. But, as I have said, the position is slightly changed when I find, as I thought I did yesterday
—so far as indications of that kind be gathered at Question Time—that there was the same feeling in the House of Commons as there was in the Government, that it was very desirable that this thing should be done, if it could be done.
That is the position. I agree that it is asking a great deal of the House of Commons. It will only be justified if the House of Commons thinks it right. We thought, in the first place, and I think we represent the view of the whole House, that this change has got to be made. It is only a question of whether it is to be made now or in the early part of next Session. If that be agreed, if that is the only question, I am sure the House will be practically unanimous. If the House of Commons takes the view of the Cabinet that since it has to be done, anyhow, however important it is to the country, and no one feels more strongly than I do that the expenditure of an additional £10,000,000 is an important matter—although I would ask my hon. Friends who are interested in it from that point of view to remember that it is more than 26,000,000 less than was recommended by the Committee—if it is so very objectionable that expenditure of that kind, not merely expenditure once for all, but permanent expenditure, Should be carried without adequate discussion, yet if the Hose of Commons takes, as I think it will, the view that we are bound to do this, then I think we are justified in considering the position of those to whom the pensions are to be given. It is a very important thing for the country, but it is almost a vital thing to many of these pensioners. If we do not carry it now there will be an inevitable delay, owing to necessary financial business next Session. The difference to these people of getting a certain amount now and waiting is so great that I do not think anyone who is in touch with his constituents does not feel that if it can be done the House of Commons would be justified in doing it.
The Bill will propose to make it begin on the 1st January, but of course it is obvious, for administrative reasons, that the pension cannot be paid so promptly as that. Anyone who is in touch with the poorer classes of his constituents knows that, first of all, the knowledge that they will definitely get it, and, secondly, the knowledge that it is going to be given at a specific time, will enable the friends of these old people to finance them during
the interval. I think I am justified in saying also that it is not entirely lost money from the point of view of the State. I am told that in my own Constituency there are very many of these old age pensioners who are driven, by simple inability to live on this pension, to the poorhouse. That means a large expenditure. I ask the House to realise that it is one of the best characteristics of our people that, even though this addition will still give them less than they would get from the Poor Law, the fact that they can live on it will prevent a good many people from seeking relief from the Poor Law. On the whole, bad as the precedent is in every way, undesirable as it is that Bills of this kind should be passed without adequate discussion, and still more undesirable as it is that we should not break our Rules—which are not merely vain show, but are really the result of many centuries of work in the House of Commons, and which are very important. not only now, but for the future—in spite of all these considerations, now that it has gone so far, and taking into account the great disappointment that will be felt if the Bill does not go through. I think the House will come to the conclusion that it is justified. I am informed by the Minister of Labour, and it is reasonable to believe it, that, if we succeed in passing this Bill, it will have a quieting effect on the general unrest which exists in the country. Taking all these considerations into account, I should be glad if the House could see its way to pass the Bill into law before the Session ends. I have only one more thing to say. It is obvious that it cannot be done if there is any serious opposition. I do not think I am asking too much of the House in making this request that we should regard the decision on this Motion as final, and that if it is found that there is an overwhelming feeling in favour of doing this, those who dislike it will waive their privilege of throwing obstacles in the way of getting it done. I wish it to be done, if it is done at all, as the act of the House of Commons as a whole. We shall not put on the Government Whips. We shall leave the House, if there is a Division, free to take its own course. I hope in all the circumstances this measure will be allowed to go through.

Sir F. BANBURY: I regret very much that the Leader of the House did not adhere to the determination which he apparently came to on Wednesday that it
was such a. gross breach of the custom and procedure of this House to ask it to pass the Resolution which he has now proposed that he did not intend to do it. This is not a question as to whether or not you are in favour of increasing old age pensions. This is a question whether you should alter the Rules of Procedure. They are the outcome of the wisdom of centuries, and it is proposed to alter them at a moment when the financial position of the country is very serious, and when any question involving increased expenditure should be carefuly considered both by the country and by the House. Supposing the Resolution is not carried, and I understand it was stated yesterday at Question Time that if the opinion of the House was not unanimous—not that it should be a bare majority—

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the last to say that the opposition of two or three people should stand against the obvious wish of the House.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is a little different, but a bare majority—

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say that.

Sir F. BANBURY: The question is whether or not we shall alter these Rules. What would be the result of the Motion not being carried? The Government has a Bill, which I believe is not yet printed.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Bill is in the Vote Office, but by the Rules of the House we are not allowed to see it until this Resolution is carried.

Sir F. BANBURY: No one has had an opportunity of knowing what is in the Bill. Supposing we refuse to grant this alteration in our procedure what will ensue? The next Session will begin in five or six weeks. It will then be possible to have the Bill printed and circulated after the Resolution has been agreed upon and after we know what is going to be done, and the proper procedure can be gone through and the proper stages of the Bill taken. Therefore, all that happens is that you are deferring it for five or six weeks. There may be some Members who attach so little importance to the Rules and Regulations of the House, of which they know so little, that they are prepared to sacrifice them in order to ensure spending public money five or six weeks earlier. The Leader of the House said since it has got to be done it was advisable to do this. What a
Precedent! There are any quantity of things which are good which even a large section of the House may think ought to be done. Are we to consider that when a section of the House says something ought to be done, that is sufficient that ordinary discussion is to be done away with, and that the whole of the stages not only of the Bill but of the Financial Resolution, are to be taken on one day? We are now at the end of a very long Session. We are only four or five days before Christmas. This is a Friday. The Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill was passed yesterday. It was not until Question time yesterday that any Member of the House knew this proposal was going to be made. Those Members who, knowing that the Appropriation Bill was to be passed yesterday, and that the Prorogation would take place on Monday or Tuesday, have gone away, have not read what took place at Questions, and may easily have missed in the newspapers what took place about this proposal, and do not know anything whatever about it. They have not seen any Bill, they did not know that a Bill was going to be produced, and even if they read it they are such a distance from London that it is impossible for them to come back and take part in the proceedings. Under these circumstances, it would be absolutely fatal if the Government persists in pressing this measure. What is the actual position of old age pensioners at present? The Budget Estimates for this year contain these items: Old age pensions, 1918–19, £12,085,000; for 1919–20, £17,892,000. That is to say there has already this year been a 50 per cent. increase over last year, and living was just as high last year as it is this.

Mr. IRVING: It is a pity a lot of them do not die, and then it would be less.

Sir F. BAN BURY: I do not see the relevance of that interruption.

Mr. IRVING: You will not see anything.

Sir F. BANBURY: If there has been that enormous increase in time old age pensions this year, and, when the Leader of the House informs us that he himself has regarded this proposal with very great suspicion, and that he has been very reluctant to do it, is it advisable that we should not wait for another five or six weeks and proceed in the ordinary way of business sooner than do what is being done now, which will be taken as a prece-
dent by the next Government or any other Government which may succeed them. Such a Government may perhaps not be very careful of the public purse, and may be desirous of doing something which we might perhaps all wish to do if we had the money. Such a Government might come down at the end of the Session, when the majority of Members are away, and pass a Bill, or do something which would have a very serious and detrimental effect upon the finances of the country. They might come down on a Friday and pass such a measure through all its stages, when there are not more than 200 out of the 700 Members present. It is a very grave and serious matter. It has nothing to do with our desire to assist people who are, unfortunately, not well off. The question is this: are we going to disregard all the safeguards which our ancestors have put into the Standing Orders in order to safeguard the expenditure of money? Are we going to do that for no sufficient reason at a time when the finances of the country are in a very serious state, and in view of the fact that only two or three months ago we were told that the prime necessity was economy, and the pressure was so great that a date was actually set aside for a debate on economy? I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that to secure economy, Members should carry out economy. Nevertheless we find that old age pensions, which we were told in 1911 would cost £6,000,000, will, if this is carried, cost £28,000,000, and in order to gain five or six weeks time all our rules and safeguards are to be swept away. I only wish I was able to express my feelings more eloquently. I am quite certain that if I had the gifts of the Prime Minister and could put what I feel to be absolutely right, and what I feel the House one day will regret—and in this I include the members of the Labour party.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.

Sir F. BANBURY: If this Resolution he passed I am sure the House will live to regret it, as certain as I am standing here. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will pause before he gives his sanction to anything which reverses and overturns all our old-established and considered procedure.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I agree, as I must, with a very large part of what has fallen
from my right hon. Friend. The precedent is a grave one, and I am not at all disagreeing with him when he says that it may easily be a dangerous one. In a very difficult situation he has rendered a public service in drawing the attention of the House, with all his authority, to the really salient facts of the situation in regard to the procedure of the House on money questions. I am sure that I express the opinion of the House when I say that no one can doubt my right hon. Friend's kindness of heart. He has shown it on many occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "On dogs!"] I entirely disagree with my hon. Friends, and I say that they do not know him. He has shown a great deal of courage in many ways in supporting unpopular causes. He has fought for the prevention of cruelty to animals in this House with a persistency we all admired. No one can doubt my right hon. Friend's kindness of heart. I am sure that, feeling as strongly as he does, he will feel bound to go to a Division, but, having expressed his views, I appeal to him that if it is shown that the overwhelming majority of the House are in favour of this measure, that in the later stages of the measure he will not exercise his undoubted talents, and they are very great, in stopping the progress of a measure which the House may come to the conclusion that it desires to pass.
What I said yesterday I repeat to-day. I do not want to add anything by way of discussion. I agree with every word said by the Leader of the House. But perhaps as palliative, and as relieving the tension of the situation and the question of procedure which the right hon. Baronet has so ably put before us, may I say that we are in a very abnormal situation. The winter is on us, the intensity of which will be realised later. These old people will unquestionably suffer acutely, and I ask my right hon. Friend to agree with me under the circumstances. He said that it is a matter of only five or six weeks. I do not agree with him. We shall not meet until the 10th February. It is quite certain there will be a pretty long Debate on the Address, unless the Government cut it down. That will carry us well on, and we shall not be in anything like the stride of legislation until the 20th February. If this measure comes up in the proper Parliamentary way it will be properly discussed, and, undoubtedly, the question would be very
much widened by that time. So far as my knowledge of Parliamentary procedure goes, I do not see any likelihood of this coming into operation at the very earliest before the middle of March.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Financial business makes that impossible.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend points out that financial business makes that impossible. Therefore, the winter will have very largely gone. I do appeal to the right hon. Baronet not to press this matter, and I assure him that this House does not deny him in full measure, kindness of heart, and sympathy with those who are suffering.

Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESS: Although I do not quite agree with the whole of my right hon. Friend's views as to the merits of this question, I do wish to reinforce this protest against the action of the Government in completely breaking down our immemorial rights of procedure. The dissent of the Leader of the House seems to me extraordinarily unsatisfactory in his explanation why the Government have brought on this matter at such short notice. The Leader of the House said that this matter was of vital importance. Most of us agree. Surely that very fact ought to have prevented the Government from allowing the House to drift into its present position. We could not bring it forward. Private Members cannot put any charge on to taxation. It is a matter which could only be dealt with on the initiative of the Government. I wish to draw a contrast between the dilatoriness of the Government on this question throughout the Session and their astonishing precipitancy during the last few hours when we can have no opportunity of discussing it. Everyone knew that this matter was urgent. We all, I suppose, have had countless letters from our constituents. Everyone knew that the winter was coming, and it is entirely the mismanagement of the Government that has allowed us to get into this position. Last April they appointed a Committee to inquire into this matter. The Committee took seven months to get the necessary information for its Report. The Cabinet since then has taken a month to make up its mind. That is, there have been eight months lost in the matter. After the eight months, they have riot adopted the conclusions of the Committee in any respect. Therefore, one is forced to the conclusion that the
Government might quite well have decided time matter right away for themselves without any Committee.
In that way we should have had proper Parliamentary control over the decision to throw at our heads at this stage of the Session an Estimate of this kind involving not one payment of £10,000,000, but a permanent charge of £10,000,000 on the revenue. It is nothing short of an insult to us. In the War we submitted to many revolutionary changes in our procedure, but it will be disastrous if the Government are going to take advantage of the breakdown of our immemorial safeguards, but continue them in time of peace. We have had within the last few days the new practice growing up of taking Bills through all their stages at one sitting. We pointed that out last week, arid were told, I think, without any real foundation, that there was precedent for this before the War. I am advised by hon. Friends who have looked into it that there was no precedent before the War. The Government are going quickly down the dangerous slope of destroying Parliamentary control. Though I do not agree with the right hon. Member for the City that this matter can be left over indefinitely, I do wish to protest against the Government having forced us into this position, because it is an insult to the House to ask it to abrogate its control over finance and to destroy its immemorial check on hasty legislation.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The statement of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) that the eight months occupied by the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Cabinet afterwards in considering this question is wasted time is quite inconsistent with his plea that the House should give more time now for the reconsideration of this subject, which has already been dealt with by two Committees. It may assist the House if I. state the genesis of this question during the last twelve months, because there are certain points which nobody so far has stated to the House which have led up to the present position. About twelve months ago there was held in Newcastle a conference representative of the whole country on the subject of old age pensions. It was attended by an enormous number of persons of all classes of society and all shades of political opinion, including a large number of Members of this House. It came to the conclusion that it was its duty to press this
matter upon Parliament and the Government. A deputation was appointed by the conference to wait upon Members of Parliament in this House, and there was a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, attended by Members of all sections of the House, over which I had the honour to preside. In the result, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was approached by a deputation selected to represent all sections of the House, asking him to deal with this matter as promptly as possible. That was in the very early stages of the present Session. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) represented the party on the Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) represented Labour. I also was a member of the deputation, and I think that there were some six or eight others. In the result the Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed a Departmental Committee. That Committee reported unanimously in favour of the principle that underlies the measure now proposed to be put before the House. The Cabinet have considered it not merely in the ordinary way, but by appointing a Committee themselves specially for the purpose. That is the proposal which comes now before the House which is opposed by the right hon. Member for the City of London on the ground that the Rules and Regulations of this House are going to be violated, and that the violation of those Rules and Regulations is sufficient justification for leaving in semi-starvation—

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

Sir F. FLANNERY: —thousands of old people who at present are struggling against privation due to the tremendously increased cost of living. Such an argument is not worthy of the House of Commons, and not likely to have effect. There has been recently a withdrawal, rightly as I believe—I am not sure if hon. Members behind me will agree—of the unemployment dole from the large number who were receiving it. This will go to a large extent towards compensating the old people who were assisted by the unemployment dole given to some of their relatives. It is not perhaps a strong argument because the argument on which this question will be founded is one of mere justice to the old people who have had the cost of living put up against them without any compensating advantage of any means
enabling them to keep body and soul together. I believe that practically the whole House will support the action of the Government in this matter. The House will not go back to the country and say to the people on the eve of Christmas that they are to be given a stone when they have asked for bread. We shall give them what. is fair and reasonable, and, in proportion to the circumstances of the day, what was intended to be given to them when the principle of old age pensions was established. That is a reasonable measure of sufficiency to keep body and soul together in their old age.

Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: I would say in reply to some of the observations of the hon. Baronet who spoke last, that there is not a single Rule or Regulation in the House which might not be made the subject of attack on such emotional grounds as he has advanced, and it is precisely in order to protect the House against the effect of such emotional fluctuations in the important matter of finance that these Regulations have been devised. I rise to make only two very brief observations. One is not tempted to be discursive when one is speaking in direct opposition to the strong opinion of the House. I have to advance the opinion that although there is no disagreement whatever upon the great desirability of an increase of old age pensions, yet an important point remains to be discussed, and that is whether it is desirable to do so before we can afford it. While that point remains outstanding it is most undesirable that the matter should be hurried through on a Friday, at the end of the Session, at short notice and with the derogation of aft those forms and methods of procedure which have been devised for securing adequate considerations of financial questions. My principal reason for rising is that I remember a pronouncement made in file Economy Debate at the beginning of the Session by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a pronouncement which was made with every circumstance of gravity, made ex cathedra, as it were. Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He was referring to the finance of next year, and he said:
Additional taxation will not be necessary unless the House desires one of two things, the first of which is, unless the House embarks on new expenditure not now provided for. For instance, a Committee is sitting on old age pen-
sions. I do not know what their recommendations will be, but I have made provision for the payment only of existing old age pensions, and if the House decides that they are insufficient I have not made provision for a larger sum. The House decides, and the House must decide, when they have the Report before them, whether they will impose additional taxation in order to increase the amount available for old age pension. Additional taxation is not necessary unless the House imposes additional charges on the Exchequer.
Again, later, the. right hon. Gentleman said:
But as I have said, the House may wish to incur charges for which we have made no provision, and my object is that they should not do so without knowing what they are doing. If they will read these papers and will be good enough to mark the commentary I have made upon them, it cannot happen. Then will know what they are doing and will know the consequences which arc to follow.
1.0 P.M.
I have ventured to read that passage in order to remind the House, in regard to next year's finance, that we are deciding whether or not upon the shoulders of the taxpayer there is to be cast 1.0 P.M. a burden of fresh taxation. I have listened with care to what has been said upon this subject. It appears to me that the only reason advanced for introducing this matter with such rapidity at the close of the Session was an appeal to sentiment. It was to make the old people's Christmas happy. I refer to that certainly in no sense of derision. We are fully conversant with the anxiety and actual misery which are cast upon the old age pensioners by the inadequacy of their pensions, but venture to suggest that this House has a wider responsibility. It has to consider not only the miseries of the Christmas of the old age pensioners, but the miseries of the Christmas of the taxpayer. All over the country there arc working-class households, there are middle-class households, dependent upon fixed incomes, which are contemplating the future with grave apprehension and with positive misery, because of their inability to make both ends meet. What we are doing to-day is to cast a fresh burden on those households. If an appeal is to be made to our sentiment, let us consider the wider area of sentiment as well as that which is more narrow. If this were only a question of the abrogation of the forms and procedure of the House, valuable as those forms are and important as it is to prevent hurried action on finance, the matter might not be worth laying so much stress upon, but it is worth laying stress upon because there is a great financial issue
upon the merits involved. I will put this proposition as one that is, at any rate, worth the most careful and anxious and calm consideration. Is, at any good at all, is it anything but base and idle extravagance to undertake expenditure on measures of social improvement out of borrowed money? I do not wish to argue the point; it may he so or it may not. In connection with this old age pension question it has never been considered, but it is worth considering. The argument is well known; the argument that it is not worth while is well known.
As long as you are making unproductive expenditure out of money which you have to borrow, in order to meet the cost of the expenditure, you are simply turning the wheel of rising prices in the vicious circle that never ends. I know that opinion is widely held in this House, and more widely held in the country. It is the sort of question which undoubtedly needs consideration, and I fear that on this occasion the House is being hurried to support a form of expenditure which will cast an additional heavy burden on the taxpayer and which will not in the long run achieve any true benefit for the old age pensioners themselves. In order to make my position quite clear and to avoid the opinions I have advanced being involved in any form of reproach to which they are not properly liable, let me add this: It is not because of any lack of realisation of the grave necessities of the old age pensioners that these opinions are maintained. It is because, in the first place, there are doubts as to whether this particular form of expenditure will truly benefit them, and because I believe it true that the House gains nothing, as regards the advantages of administration, by recklessly abolishing the forms it has established for its own protection.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope the House will forgive me if I make some remarks on this subject as I happened to be Chairman of the Departmental Committee which has been referred to. Whatever may have been the expenditure of time by that Committee the House may take it that it did its best to grapple with the very large question referred to it. It had before it week after week and month after month, by witness after witness, the evidence and the facts and the reasonings which have been brought before all of us, and the different points of view which have found such trenchant expression in this Debate. I am quite sure that all the
members of that Committee, and certainly those whom I had the opportunity of consulting, are very grateful to the Government for making this proposal, unusual though it be in form and open to criticism from certain points of view. We are grateful to the Government because we were all persuaded from an early stage of our inquiry—and that persuasion became, if possible, more complete the longer it went on—that some increase in the amount of old age pensions was necessary, and necessary at the earliest possible moment if the problem of the aged poor were not to become more serious instead of less. Our proposals, which, of course, I am not going to discuss now in detail, go much further than any proposal of the Government. I hope I may be allowed to suggest, and that my right hon. Friend will treat my suggestion with sympathy, that next Session some day will be set apart for debating the whole of our Report and the whole of the problem of old age pensions with its repercussions both as to Poor Law and National Insurance. I do not think that our long and detailed inquiry is going to be of that value to the country which we would like it to be unless there is some such thorough Parliamentary discussion before the Report is adopted.
While, therefore, we ought to look forward to an early opportunity being given to Parliament to express its opinions on the scope of our Report, and it may be to incur expenditure of a kind which will not be open to economic objection, it is, I am confident, equally the desire of all that something should be done at once to meet the most pressing aspects of the matter. If that be so, then I believe the Government are well warranted in the proposal they make to-day, and I hope that the House Will, by an overwhelming majority, endorse that proposal. Do hon. and right hon. Members who have criticised the proposal to-day realise how very little from one point of view will he effected by the Government Bill. You raise old age pensions from 7s. 6d. to 10s., the purchasing power of which is less rather than more of what the original old age pension of ten years ago was. If that be the fact, and if you give them even less than you gave them after solemn debate ten years ago your precedent is not so dangerous as it is when described in general terms. If it be true, as it is, that the finances of our country are in a grave state, and if it be true that the economic side of the War
is with us still, can England even now not afford that those who are too old to help her shall not suffer in proportion as the rest of us may have to do in consequence of the War. That is the sentiment of which I think none of us need feel ashamed even on the actual facts and on the application of reason to those facts. More than that, the sum which my right hon. Friend has suggested is obviously not more than enough, and I doubt whether it be enough considering the lower purchasing power of money, to bring within the purview of the old age pensions as many persons as were within the purview of them when they were originally established. In other words, the amount fixed ten years ago has been so much lowered by depreciation in money without any raising of the limit which can be contemplated within the financial scope of this Resolution, that it will not be enough to bring the old age pension within reach of all the persons within whose reach they were brought by the original Old Age Pensions Act.
As I understand the matter, and I speak after many opportunities of considering the question, the proposals of the Government are not really to extend old age pensions substantially, although I hope and trust that the House will do so before many Sessions have passed. Those recommendations are to prevent and stop automatic- restrictions on old age pensions both in scope and value which have come about through the devaluation of money. If that be so, surely the arguments against this proposal are far weaker than if there were an attempt to extend old age pensions to people who were not contemplated at all ten years ago. If the whole question were to be dealt with thoroughly now the objections of some hon. Members would be stronger than they are to a proposal which is merely to prevent the aged poor from bearing the full amount of extra suffering which the devaluation of money has brought about. Surely that is a matter in which Members of the House in all parts are free to help. I hope that the House will support the Government, bearing in mind, no doubt, the criticisms which have been urged, and knowing that the real balance of value and of public benefit is on the side of this prompt dealing with the most urgent aspect of a great question.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: With a great deal of what my hon. and learned Friend has just said I certainly, and I think a great many of those who have doubts with re-
gard to this proposal, will find themselves in agreement. The plea, of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was a very powerful one. He appealed to a sympathy which I think we feel on all the benches of this House for those who are concerned in the necessities of the old age pensions I am quite ready to go further, and to say that I believe there is general agreement that the old age pensions must be increased. I admit the strength of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument, and I feel it myself, but surely there has not been a word spoken in this Debate from my hon. and right hon. Friends, with the exception of the most unfortunate speech made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Flannery), which implied any lack of sympathy with these poor people. We are discussing not that point, but a great constitutional question as to the position in which this House is placed by the proposal made by my right hon. Friend. Three tribunals sat on this question. There has been a Departmental Committee presided over by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins), and that Committee took seven months to discuss the matter. Suppose at one of the sittings of that Committee that my hon. Friend came down and said, "I am informed by the Government and it is absolutely necessary that this must be done at once and legislation would be impossible, unless you close the inquiry now. I must insist that somehow or other this Departmental Committee comes to an instant decision and inquires no further into the details." It next comes to the Cabinet. We are told a Committee of the Cabinet met, and that that Committee has taken nearly five weeks to come to a conclusion. Why? It had all the evidence and all the conclusions before it, and it had abundant time. If one member of that Cabinet Committee had come dawn and said to his colleagues, "Really, Gentlemen, it is quite impossible to put off this decision and you must at once come to a settlement; I have got one here for you," what would the Cabinet have said? But for which of the three tribunals is this summary and curt procedure demanded? For the house of Commons, on which financial responsibility presumably rests.
We are told that we must pass this Resolution hero and now and finish the decision of the question. I am quite ready to agree with my right hon. Friend that we must accept the spirit of this Resolution and that it would be wrong in any sense
to continue obstruction, but I would ask the House to remember that in this single decision taken after an hour's debate we are to decide once and for all the question of allotting a sum the capital value of which is at least £200,000,000—that is to say, the whole amount of the annual revenue of this nation before the War. Is it a decree of the Medes, and Persians that this House must be Prorogued on the 23rd of this month? Are our holidays of such imperious importance that, for the sake of them, we must, set aside a. fundamental principle of finance? Why cannot the Leader of the house ask us to continue for a week longer after Christmas and finish this business? Surely what we have to do here is to devote ourselves to the work of representing our constituents, and I do not think we do so when we set aside altogether those ancient and most important and fundamentally constitutional of our functions, that is of examining carefully the enormous sums of expenditure. I am not disposed to grudge these old age pensions, but there is one peculiarity about this which makes it differ from other taxation. You are not now making a proposal to tax our fellow citizens to provide the sum necessary for public expenditure; you are really proposing by this Resolution to transfer £200,000,000 from one body of citizens to another body of citizens. I do not grudge it, and I do not say it is wrong, but I do say it requires, instead' of less, increased opportunities of due consideration, and I do not think the Government have exhausted the possibilities before coming down and proposing this most undesirable abrogation of cur financial functions.

Mr. S. WALSH: I wish to say, speaking on behalf of the Labour party, that I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House most heartily for having at this late hour introduced this Motion. It probably was the most ho could do, having regard to all the circumstances, but there never could be a more gracious time in which to carry a Resolution such as this. As he himself said, if it had to be done, "'twere well it were done quickly," and I am quite sure it will carry a message of real hope into the homes of thousands of people who otherwise might pass a very penurious Christmas and New Year. I am glad to know that he is proposing very materially to raise the income limit. That indeed will bring a great many people into the enjoyment of old age pensions who
hitherto were debarred, although they have lived very frugal lives, and although they were very largely dependent upon the charity of others. That is a very material benefit indeed, to raise the income limit by about £18, and it will bring in a great many people who were really entitled to be tile recipients of the old age pension but who could not get it. Of course, it does not meet what we believe to be the real necessities of the case. Everybody is agreed that the old people need a pension more commensurate with the increased cost of living, and upon the necessities of the old age pensions we are all agreed. Listening to the speeches that have been delivered here, I really was surprised at the change of tone which takes place when you are dealing with people who cannot press their claims, who can bring no great force to bear upon Parliament as distinct from the tone when you are dealing with vast bodies of men who have great powers of compulsion. Here, where the need is admitted, where there can be no more Christian or noble act for this House to perform, we are wasting time discussing the wisdom of our ancestors, the immemorial wisdom of our ancestors. The idea seems to be in the minds of many hon. Members that not only are these Rules and Regulations immemorial, but that they are to be eternal and unchangeable, and that some awful disaster is going to befall the House of Commons and tee country because we are taking a Resolution such as this to meet the urgent and pressing needs of the poorest of our people. On behalf of the party for which I speak, we do thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for this concession, late as it is and small in amount as it is. At the same time, it will relieve a good deal of distress, and it will bring a message of hope into thousands of homes, and for that we thank him.

Mr. ARCHDALE: I intervene for only a few moments, as this is a matter which means more to an Irish Member than to other hon. Members. Owing to healthy and quiet lives, we live in Ireland, unless we happen to offend a Sinn Fein magnate, to a much greater age than in any other part of the Kingdom. I am in entire sympathy with the Government in regard to the necessity for this proposal, and I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon bringing it forward. He did not say exactly what was to be done, ex-
cept that it is proposed to raise the old age pension from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a week, but I am also in entire agreement with his reasons. I have been chairman of our local old age pensions committee since it was started, and I am certain that it will make a tremendous difference in the unrest that is going about the country. At meetings I have been at lately, men have been giving up their pensions and going into the workhouse, which costs very much more to the country. Certainly one of the best things that can be done this Christmas is to put aside hide-bound rules and give a Christmas box to the deserving old age pensioners throughout the country.

Mr. BONAR LAW: May I make an appeal to the House to come to a decision? And perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on what has been said in the Debate. Let me say, at the outset, that I do not undervalue or deprecate the criticism which has been made with regard to our proceedings. I regard it as very serious. I regard it as a great disadvantage that we should be compelled to take this course, but I should like to say a word in justification of the Blil. I do not think we could have done better. The Report was only published on the 12th November. We could not have put compulsion on the Committee to report earlier, and it had to be considered in detail by the Cabinet. I think the House will agree that there has not been any undue delay in submitting the matter to the House of Commons. I say, further, it is not a question of a few weeks' delay. With the financial business before -us, if we are to meet on the 10th February, I do not think it is possible that this Bill could have been in any circumstances carried before Easter, unless it is carried now. There was one other subject raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), who said, "Why cannot we ask the House to sit longer?" So far as the Government are concerned we would do it, but it would be a great disadvantage to the Government and the Government Departments. I can assure the House that, as they know, in no Parliament in the experience of any of us have Members been put to such a strain, and the result is that unless they do get some rest, I do not think it would be possible to begin work again with that zeal which is required. Further, there is this to be remembered, that, although the War is over, we are really dealing with war conditions, and I
hope the House will keep that in view as well as the other arguments. We are breaking down rules, and this precedent is a great disadvantage, but it could not be avoided.
As to the general question, it really comes to this. If the view is correct that we ought to reconsider the whole subject and not a, it till the next Session, then we ought to do it now. The Government have only suggested this proposal because we think, not only in our own view, but in the view of the whole House of Commons, this ought to be done, and therefore it is only a question of whether we do it now, or do it later. All I say is we are leaving it. to a free vote, and let us go to a Division and judge by the voting how much opposition there is, not on the ground of principle, but to our doing this in all the circumstances of the case. That is the point, and I should like to say this in reference to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh). I have had experience in this House that Members are not frightened, as we are supposed to be, by our constituents. We found, in regard to the unemployment benefit, that they had the courage of their convictions. But I do not ask any Member to vote for this unless he thinks, on all its merits, it is the right course. If the Division shows that the house is overwhelmingly in favour of it, then I do not think it would be wise to carry it into the next Session.
Question put, and agreed to.

OLD AGE PENSIONS [Money]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make such provision out of moneys provided by Parliament as is required for raising the maximum rate of old age pensions to ten shillings per week and for enabling old age pensions to be paid to persons whose yearly means do not exceed forty-nine pounds seventeen shillings and six pence and as is required in connection with other Amendments of the Old Age Pensions Acts, and to amend the Debtors Act, 1869, in relation to Old Age Pensions."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Probably it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I briefly outline the Bill on the
Financial Resolution. It will very likely save a second speech if I give now the provisions of the Bill. Let me remind the Committee what is the present position. Persons who attain the age of seventy are entitled, under previous Acts, to a pension of 5s. per week, provided that their actual means, excluding the pension, do not exceed 12s. per week. As hon. Members know, the pension is graded according to means. I ought to add that during the War a war bonus of 2s. 6d. has been paid to the old age pensioner, making the present pension of 5s. up to is. 6d. paid in respect of those whose means limit does not go beyond 12s. per week. The proposals of the Bill are to increase the rate according to the means limit. The increase is to be practically to a pension of 10s. per week provided that the means limit do not exceed £26.5s. per year. I propose to deal not with the annual sum, but with the weekly sum. If the means do not exceed 12s. per week the pension will be 8s.; if the means do not exceed 14s. per week the pension will be 6s.; not exceeding 16s. the pension will be 4s.; not exceeding 18s. the pension will be 2s.; not exceeding 19s. the pension will be 1s., and exceeding 19s. per week there will be no pension. This, in effect, practically doubles the rate of the pension, and increases the means limit in the way I have described.

Sir D. ADKINS: By 25 per cent.?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not quite 25 per cent. I have given the actual figures. The increase in the means limit, it is estimated, brings in 220,000 new pensioners who are excluded to-day. The Bill follows the advice of the Committee in altering the disqualificatons for pension. Outdoor relief is in future not to disqualify, and infirmary treatment for three months in any one year is not to disqualify. The provision in the old Acts which left the pensioner open to challenge in respect to the man who failed to work according to his ability—a provision which, I understand, was extremely difficult to put into operation, even if it ever was put into operation—is to be abolished.

Mr. ADAMSON: There were a few cases.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then the pension is to start immediately upon release from prison, if an old age pensioner should be so unfortunate as to find himself there. The old double punishment is
abolished. The furniture is to be taken into account in calculating means. The first £25 of capital is to be excluded. The next £375 of capital is to be deemed to be earning 5 per cent. per annum, and the remaining capital in excess of £400 is to be deemed to be earning 10 per cent, per annum. On the whole, this is an extremely generous provision to old age pensioners, because the annuity value of any capital at seventy is well up to 10 per cent. In the earlier stages this capital is to be exempt altogether; in the middle stages it is to be deemed to be earning 5 per cent., and in the latter stages 10 per cent. In calculating income, sick pay on any medical certificate for three months in any one year is not to be taken into account as income. There arc several other administrative provisions which, I think, are not of sufficient importance to deal with at the present moment.

Sir R. ADKINS: Have the Government been able to put in any provision that the pension is to date from the day of application, if it is granted, or the day on which the person becomes seventy—whichever is the earlier. A resolution was unanimously passed by the Committee to meet the case of several weeks' delay and uncertainty. I hope the Government have dealt with it

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): May I suggest that it would be much more convenient to have the general discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, rather than on this specific Resolution? The Bill cannot be circulated until it has been read a first time, and it is not desirable under the circumstances to have a wide discussion on this Resolution.

Sir R. ADKINS: The discussion can take place at any time so far as I am concerned, and if we are agreed. All I desired was at the earlier moment information of what the Bill contains.

Mr. G. THORNE: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and in support of what you have just said, I have just applied to the Vote Office and have been informed that I cannot get copies of the Bill until it has been formally introduced.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was really proposing to do what you suggest, Sir. I was taking the very broad lines of the proposed measure, and showing the Committee what were the main alterations. There are certain administrative pro-
visions, one dealing with the point just raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. I will tell the Committee what the financial effect Will be, and the White Paper circulated will probably help us. The total cost of old age pensions, when these alterations have been made, is estimated to amount to £28,000,000, an increase on the present rate of expenditure of £10,350,000. Hon. Members may like to know what were the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee made recommendations which would involve a very considerably increased expenditure beyond that which is now proposed to the Committee. The Majority Report of the Committee recommended there should be universal pensions, without a wage limit, of 10s. at the age of seventy. That would cost £41,000,000, and would give an increase of £23,350,000, as against the £10,350,000 proposed irk this Bill. Having explained in broad outline the Bill, I may say if there are any administrative questions the better way will be to deal with them when the Bill has been released.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution reported, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir L. Worthington-Evans, and Mr. Baldwin.

OLD AGE PENSIOM BILL,—"to amend the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911, and the Debtors Act. 1869, presented accordingly; read the first time, and ordered to be printed [Bill 249.]

Bill react a second time.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Saving for Existing Pensioners.)

(1) Where the means of any person who is in receipt of an old age pension at the time of the commencement of this Act would be greater if calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1908 and 1911, as amended by this Act, than they would be if calculated in accordance with the provisions of those Acts as not so amended, the means of that person shall for the purposes of the Acts of it108 and 1911, and this Act continue to be calculated as if this Act had not passed.

(2) The provisions of this Act modifying in respect of residence the statutory conditions for the receipt of an old age pension shall not operate so as to disentitle any person who is in receipt of an old age pension at the time of the commencement of this Act from continuing to receive the pension.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GUEST: I wish to ask whether, in calculating the means of an applicant for an old age pension, the provision which may be made by a son for the maintenance of his parents will be calculated? In my own district there are many old people debarred from an old age pension simply from the fact that the son, with a very reasonable desire to keep his parents from the Poor Law, has made sonic provision in the way of a few shillings per week, or has provided food or clothing, and that has been taken to be income, arid the old people have been debarred from a pension. I wish to know if any alteration in regard to this point is made in this Bill?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the hon. Member knows that the main alteration made by these proposals is to increase the means limit, and therefore it will cover automatically the vast number of cases such as he refers to. Other than that there is no alteration which affects the point he raises.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 10 (Short Title, Commencement, and Repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without, Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Sir L. Worthington-Erans.]

Mr. G. THORNE: As I was a member of the Select Committee I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Government for their ready response to our request. It was manifest that it was the general consensus of opinion that this course should be immediately taken, and I am glad the Government have recognised that. We are very grateful to the Government for the procedure they have adopted on this measure. Although there have been two or three objections, think what we indicated to the Government yesterday was the manifest opinion of the whole House. I only desire to say
that none of us have raised any objections in regard to the terms of the Bill, although we should like to do so. Nevertheless we agree to accept what the Government suggest but I am sure members of the Government will realise that some members of the Committee desire more than the Government are granting, and it is proposed next Session to make representations on this point, but we do not desire that this Bill shall be prejudiced by any attempts in that direction. I hope that I may be in order in saying this. Last night, towards midnight, I raised a point in regard to the payment of old age pensions. This notice was issued and was in the Post Office last night:
Old age pensions, due for payment on Boxing Day, cannot be paid before Monday, 29th December, By Order.
That means that no single old age pensioner will receive any payment whatever during the whole course of next week.

Mr. SPEAKER: I doubt if this matter has anything whatever to do with the Bill. It is true that we have broken almost every Rule of the House to-day, but really there must be some limit; otherwise, it is of no use my being in the Chair at all.

Mr. THORNE: I am sorry, but I only referred to the matter in consequence of the promise made last night.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should ask that question at the proper time. It really has nothing to do with the Bill, so far as I know at present

THE PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd' George): I only want to say that it is quite clear that this could not have been done except with the consent, not merely of all parties in time House, but of almost every Member of the House. Although the Rules of the House of Commons are Rules which have been established for the protection of the liberties of the people, there are occasions of great emergency when it is necessary that they should be suspended; and I cannot help thinking that it is very creditable to the House that, with this unanimity, they should have deemed it a matter of urgency to suspend the Rules, in order to provide some cheer for poor old people who have worked hard all their lives, and who find themselves in circumstances of poverty and distress. I think, also, we can take pride that the country, with all its burdens, is prepared
to accept even a little heavier burden, in order that those who over a long life have honourably discharged their duties as citizens of the State shall not in their old age suffer penury and want. I am glad myself to have been present in the House on this occasion.

Mr. ADAMSON: Like others, the members of the Labour party are very pleased, notwithstanding that it is not in exact conformity with the Rules of the House, that the Government have seen fit to bring in a measure of this character in the closing hours of the Session. As has already been pointed out, we are not exactly in agreement with all the provisions of the Bill. We would have liked to have seen many amendments made to it if time had permitted, but we recognise the urgency of the case, and we are pleased that the Government have brought in the measure, notwithstanding the fact that it falls short of what we desire. I am certain that the passage of this Bill will bring a measure of joy to quite a number of homes, and I just want to associate the party for which I speak in thanking the Government for having brought in the Bill and for placing it upon the Statute Book, thus bringing some more hope and some more real comfort to the aged people of this land.

2.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I should just like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he can clearly define the position of married couples who will be old age pensioners under this Bill. Would the pension payable to the husband and the pension payable to the wife be of an equal amount? I should also like to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for having brought in the Bill.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire, as a member of the Committee which has been sitting on old age pensions for some time, to express my thanks to the Government for passing this Bill. We accept it most gratefully as an instalment of what we think ought to be done, and I am glad that the House of Commons have seen fit in this case of extreme urgency to suspend their Rules in order to carry through this most beneficial measure.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) is, Yes, is they are both over seventy years
of age. I might just supplement what the Prime Minister has said, and thank the House for passing the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.

Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments proposed in lieu of certain Lords Amendments disagreed to, considered.

CLAUSE 9.—(Deportation of Former Enemy Aliens.)

(1) Every former enemy alien who is now in the United Kingdom shall be deported forthwith unless he shall within two months after the passing of this Act make an application to the Secretary of State in the prescribed form to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom, stating the grounds on which such application is based, and unless the Secretary of State shall grant him a licence to remain: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to such former enemy aliens as were exempted from internment or repatriation on the recommendation of any advisory committee appointed after toe first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, and before the passing of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied on the recommendation of the advisory committee hereinafter mentioned that there is no reason to the contrary, grant such licence, subject to such terms aid conditions (if any) as he shall think fit.

(3) The committee may, unless satisfied by reports from the naval, military, air force, or police authorities that there is good reason to the contrary, recommend the exemption from deportation of a former enemy alien on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:

(a) That the applicant is seventy years of age or upwards;
(b) That the applicant is suffering from serious and permanent illness or infirmity;
(c) That the applicant has one or more sons who voluntarily enlisted and served in His Majesty's Forces or the forces of one of the Allied or Associated Powers;
(d)That the applicant has lived for at least twenty years us this country and married a British-born wife;
(e) That the applicant came to reside in the United Kingdom when he was. under the age of twelve years;
(f) That the applicant has served in His Majesty's Forces during the War or resided in the United Kingdom for not less than twenty years, and has rendered valuable personal services to this country during the War;
(g) That the applicant is a minister of religion.

(4) The committee may also where the application for a licence is made on any ground other than one or more of those above specified, if satisfied that owing to the special circumstances of the case deportation would involve serious hardship to the applicant or to his wife or children, or owing to the special technical
knowledge or skill of the applicant, would involve injury to any British interest, recommend his exemption as aforesaid.

(5) In granting a licence under this Section, the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of the applicant and any child or children of his under the age of eighteen.

(6) A list of the persons to whom such licence is granted shall, as soon as may be after the granting of the licence, be published in the Gazette.

(7) Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State.

(8) If such licence is not granted or if, having been granted, it shall be revoked, the Secretary of State shall make an Order (in this Act referred to as a Deportation Order) requiring the alien to leave the United Kingdom and thereafter to remain out of the United Kingdom for a period of seven years after the passing of this Act. The Secretary of State may, by a Deportation Order, require the alien to return to the country of which he is a subject or citizen.

(9) The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to and not in b derogation of any other provisions of the principal Act or this Act, or any Order in Council made thereunder, providing for the deportation of aliens.

(11) This Section shall not apply to a woman who was at the time of her marriage a British subject.

Lords Amendments disagreed with: In Sub-section (1), leave out from the word "shall" ["shall be deported"] to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words
and to whom this Section applies shall be deported forthwith unless the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the advisory committee, to be constituted under this Section, shall grant hint a licence to remain.

Leave out Sub-sections (3) to (9) inclusive, and insert instead thereof seven new Sub-sections. [For text of new Sub-sections see OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1919, cols. 385, 586.]

[For Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments disagreed with, sec OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1919, cols. 849–587–591.]

The Lords disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Amendment made by the Lords in Subsection (1) for the following reason:
Because they consider that aliens in the cases to which the provision refers should not be subject to deportation unless some complaint is made against them.

The Lords disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Amendment made by the Lords in Subsections (3) to (9) for the following reason:
Because it is inconsistent with Amendments already made by their Lordships.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, "That this House doter not insist on its disagreement with the said Lords Amendments, on which their Lordships have insisted."
The House of Lords has not seen its way to accept certain Amendments of which, after no little discussion and at least two votes, this House undoubtedly approved. The contrast between the Bill as it now comes back to the House and the Bill as it left this Rouse is perfectly obvious. As the Bill left this House, there was to be a universal rule that the alien enemy was to be deported forthwith subject to certain exceptions which were made, and unless he came within certain named categories. The form in which it comes back to the House to-day is that the burden of proof, if I may use that expression, is put the other way round. The alien is not to be deported unless—again subject to certain exceptions—complaint is made and established against him. I am very far from denying—it would be idle to deny—that is a change of very considerable gravity and importance in this Bill. It is a change introduced into this Bill after this House had quite clearly and unequivocally, on two occasions, expressed its view. But now there arises, as must always be the case in controversies of this kind, the question of expediency. I desire to put that question plainly and not to subtract in the smallest degree from the way in winch it is presented. The point I put is this: Is the alteration of Clause 9 of this Bill of so vital a character that rather than submit—I will not say accept—we are prepared to sacrifice the whole Bill? I do not know what the opinion of others may be, but I do seriously suggest to the House that this Bill, in many of its remaining Clauses, which I need not particularise, does contain valuable provisions, some of them of an urgent kind. Upon the whole I put it to the House that the proper course for us now to take is not to insist upon the Amendments which were inserted in this House but to accept, with reluctance it may be, the course which has been taken in another place. The effect will then be, if this Bin becomes an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will very shortly, the country will have the benefit of all those other provisions unimpaired, and the benefit as well of Clause 9, not, it is true, in the form we desire, but in a form in which it will certainly work with a considerable amount of success.

Sir J. BUTCHER: When this question came before this House the other day we discussed at some length the merits of the two Clauses, the one as it left the House of Commons, and the other as it left the House of Lords. I do not for one moment go back one iota from what I said on that occasion as to the great gravity of the questions which were involved. The House, I am glad to think, on that occasion affirmed their previous decision by a majority of two to one. To-day the question has entered on a totally different phase. It is no longer a question between us of the merits of the two Clauses, although upon that point, I must say, the merit lies with this House, and I shall continue to think so. But to-day the question is a much larger and much more serious one. It raises a grave constitutional issue—the issue whether the House of Lords, as at present constituted, has a right on an, occasion of this sort to flout the opinion of the House of Commons, solemnly recorded on two occasions by a free vote in the House, and in each case by a majority of nearly two to one. They tell us that we do not know our business, that our election pledges amount to nothing, and that they are entitled to decide whether what the country wishes shall be carried through. We have now to say whether we will bow to their coercion.
To my mind this is a grave serious constitutional question. Let me remind the House how the matter stands. This question came before the country at the last General Election at a very recent date—and that is a relevant consideration—and it came before it in the most definte form in which any question could be put forward. The country on that occasion demanded, speaking broadly, that all German and other enemy aliens should be sent out of the country, subject to reasonable exceptions. The candidates who stood for Parliament at that election gave solemn pledges to their constituents that they would carry out their desires in that direction. I venture to think that the spirit. of honour is not dead in the House of Commons, and that those pledges which were given, whether wisely or not I care not one jot—those solemn pledges which Members gave to their constituents, and upon which they obtained election, should be strictly and rigorously honoured. If a man choses to go back upon his pledges let him return to his constituents like an honest man and say, "I have changed my
mind; I would like to know whether you have changed your minds." It he is released from his pledge, and votes in a different sense, no one in that case would have a right to complain.
But none of these things have happened. We have come here. The Bill is brought in; a Clause is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the desires of the country expressed at the General Election, and the pledges of those Members who in response to these desires, said they would do certain things. The Clause is carried after prolonged debate, on a Division, by a majority of two to one. It goes up to another place, and the House of Lords say: "We will pay no regard to the wishes of the country, no regard to those pledges on which hon. Members have recently obtained their election, but we will act upon grounds which recommend themselves to us; we shall disregard your decisions, and we shall coerce you into carrying out our wishes." Accordingly they reject the Clause which embodies the wishes of the country and the pledges of Members, and they substitute an entirely and fundamentally different Clause designed for one purpose, and one only, and that is to let all Germans and other enemy aliens who have stayed in this country remain here. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, to remain here subject to no deportation at all. That at any rate is my opinion, and it is the fact as I showed on the last. occasion.
The object of this Clause has been openly professed, and those who support it have made a great show of delight. Those who support it in this House, and in the other House make no disguise of their joy and gratification that this Act will let practically every German remain here. We have only to read their speeches. They say: "Why trouble these poor men any more, why bother them, why not let them stay here?" That has been the open profession of the advocates of the Clause, and that will be its effect, if passed. Let there be no mistake about that. Let us not be deluded with the idea that the Clause is in such a form that it will not allow every German and alien enemy still to remain in this country. Incidentally, may I say a word or two about a class with whom I have great sympathy, namely, the Austrians? It was suggested in another place that Rome consideration should be shown to Austrians on the ground that if they were sent back to Vienna and other places they would starve
If any suggestion had been made either here or in another place for giving special consideration to their case, I should have been glad to give every consideration to it. As a matter of fact, it was provided in the Bill as it left this House that in any case where it could be shown that deportation would involve serious hardship on a man and his family or dependants he should not be deported. Any Committee which had to examine this matter, if informed that the sending back of these unfortunate men and women to Austria would involve their starvation, of course would exempt them. If there had been any doubt about it, I should have been only too glad to make it quite clear in the Pill that those considerations should be adhered to.
The House of Lords have passed this Clause in a form directly contrary to the sill of the people as expressed at the last election and directly contrary to the pledges that were then given. Not the Toast significant is the reason by which they try to justify their action. They say, "We are the real judges, not you, of what the wishes of the country are. We are the real arbiters, not you, of whether you should carry out your pledges or not. We in our wisdom think that the country has departed from the wishes it expressed at the last election. We think and we know much better than you that the country no longer desires that your pledges should be carried out. Therefore we will coerce you into repudiating your pledges." Apart altogether from the merits of this particular question, a great issue immediately arises. Ought the House of Lords, as a Second Chamber, constituted as it is at present, to be allowed to assert its rights in that form? Personally I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, has gone far beyond any rights existing or duties incumbent upon it in treating the House of Commons in the way it has done in respect to this Bill. I am a strong supporter of a Second Chamber. I hold that we ought to have a properly constituted Second Chamber in this country. I hold that good government demands that that Second Chamber should have wide and extensive powers. But we are unfortunately to-day dealing with a Second Chamber which is not properly constituted. Therefore, I say to hon. Members who support the action of the Lords in this matter, most of whom are opponents of the Second Chamber principle alto-
gether, that when you come here and, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), thank your God that there is a House of Lords, it will be remembered against you at a future time. It will be remembered against the right hon. Gentleman, and, perhaps, will act as a rod for his own back and the backs of those who support him in this matter. He may say that he likes it. Sometimes the sinner likes the rod, but sometimes people who are not sinners do not like it. Be that as it may we have the so-called democratic party, which is opposed to the principle of the Second Chamber, saying that they desire that the House of Commons should be overruled and its wishes flouted, that the country should have its wish destroyed by this House of Lords, for which they thank their God that it exists. I am glad to take note of their wishes. I trust the country will take note of them. If ever the time should come when they happen to disagree with the House of Lords and they desire to upset that House, let their thanks to God be remembered and let it be remembered that they not only desired but insisted that the House of Lords in this matter should be allowed to overrule the wishes of the country and that they compelled the Lords to coerce us to break our pledges and to act in a manner totally irresponsible. The Debate has had one beneficial result if only it has brought out the love of the democratic party for the House of Lords.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I shall have occasion to disagree with them later this afternoon.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I had anticipated that inconsistency occurring at a later date, but I hardly anticipated such inconsistency that you should thank God for them and oppose them on the same day. In these circumstances what should be done? The issues are plain. Only one of two courses is possible. The first is to wreck the Bill, with all its valuable provisions, and the second is to submit to this almost intolerable coercion. If this Bill only consisted of Clauses about enemy aliens, I should gladly wreck the Bill for two reasons—first, because I do not want to submit to coercion, and, secondly, because the Bill so far as it deals with former enemy aliens is absolutely absurd, inconclusive and useless. Therefore, if it were wrecked so far as enemy aliens are concerned, we should get rid of a, sham and should not be doing any harm.
The Bill, however, contains many valuable provisions which even the members of another place have not ventured to challenge or dispute, and which some of them have had the candour to admit are extremely valuable. It contains provisions preventing incitement to sedition on the part of aliens. It contains a whole series of Clauses passed in this House with almost unanimous consent regarding aliens in the Mercantile Marine. It provides that no master, first officer or first engineer in the Mercantile Marine shall be an alien it puts considerable restrictions on the employment of alien seamen in the Mercantile Marine. It provides against aliens entering our Civil Service in all these matters the interest of the country is deeply affected. We know that the members of the Mercantile Marine—that splendid service to whom this country owed so much during the War and to which we desire and intend to show our gratitude—feel the strongest interest in the Clauses dealing with that service, and desire that they should be maintained. The House of Lords, apparently, are willing that all these provisions should be wrecked and that injury should be inflicted upon the Mercantile Marine and other large sections of the public which would be inflicted if the Bill were wrecked. They are willing that that should be done provided that they may have their way and allow the Germans to remain in this country. That is the issue between us. They are willing to wreck the Bill in the interest of Germans and against the interest of Britishers. I am not willing to wreck the Bill. If it inflicts great injury upon large sections of British subjects, even then the effect might be in some way to touch the Germans. In this matter I think the Britisher is more entitled to consideration than the German, and there we differ profoundly and entirely from the view taken by the House of Lords. Therefore I am prepared to accept the advice of the Attorney-General to agree to the Lords Amendment in this respect, in order to reserve the other valuable parts of the Bill But, while I agree, I desire in the strongest language I can command —and I only wish I could command something stronger—to protest indignantly against the action of the House of Lords in over-riding the opinion of the country and coercing and intimidating us into a departure from our pledges; and the only reason I assent to that course, which I regard as unconstitutional on their part
and a gross dereliction of their public duty, is because I think the wider and the greater interest of the community and the Mercantile Marine and those other large classes who are interested in the Bill demand that we should set all personal feeling aside and all smaller issues, and do our best for the country as a whole.

Sir E. WILD: I propose to address myself to the proposition so cogently put before us by the Attorney-General when he put the dilemma in which this House is placed. Is the Clause so vital that we are to sacrifice the whole Bill? That is the only question that is before us. That means, as I understand constitutional practice, that if we disagree with the Lords Amendment we should reinsert our own Clause. That would go to the other place, and if the other place again disagreed with us the Bill would be dead. That puts the House in this happy position with regard to the real superiority of the other place. It means that we are perfectly entitled to insist upon the Clause which has been twice freely voted upon by the House, and if we did the Bill would not be dead. It would only be dead if, when it gets back to the House of Lords, the House of Lords was so enamoured of their Clause 9 that rather than accept what the representatives of the people had said they would kill the Bill. Therefore, it would be up to them to kill the Bill. But what I understand of the constitution, I will not say of the House of Lords but of the few learned lawyers who apparently monopolise the Debates in the House of Lords, is that they would be so arrogant that they would even go to that extent, and rather than give in upon this matter they would insist -Loon their own Clause and kill the Bill. I want people to understand that if the Bill is either killed this afternoon, or goes through in this truncated form, the whole fault rests with the House of Lords and not with the House of Commons.
That being the position, if we debate at all, we shall more usefully debate the position in which we find ourselves with regard to the history of this Bill. What is it? The country was appealed to before the General Election. There was an attempt to interest, the country in the various measures which were said to be going to make the land fit for heroes to live in. The country was entirely uninterested in any of those measures. Thereupon there were certain other cries submitted to the country because the
country was interested in them, and of the three cries which were issued one was with regard to the punishment of war prisoners, the other with regard to indemnities, and the third in regard to the question of the treatment of enemy aliens. There is no doubt that the great majority of us were returned upon those issues. It is unnecessary to quote, though I have here the statements of tae Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, and other leaders of the Government. The Prime Minister himself says, speaking of the Germans:
I have repeatedly said that in my judgment these people, having abused our hospitality, shall riot get another opportunity of doing so.
The Lord Chancellor said the same thing. They all said it. Most of us said it, and most of us are here because we said it. The Government, which is not free from blame in the matter, made the initial mistake of postponing the alien legislation till just before the Easter Recess. Then they brought in the Bill, consisting of only a few Clauses, and dealing with the matter by Order in Council. Then, after the Recess, at length we got into Grand Committee, and we remoulded the Bill and insisted upon positive legislation instead of Orders in Council. That was carried. We came here and had a long Debate upon it, and the Government was defeated upon a Clause. The matter was reconsidered, but there never was any dispute of principle between the Government and ourselves except as between Orders in Council and positive legislation. I am not making any attack on the Government's desire to deal with aliens. I am only saying that the real dispute was whether we should deal with it by Order in Council or not. That is quite different from the point of view of the House of Lords. Then it was obvious that the House of Commons insisted upon this matter being dealt with by positive legislation. We debated this Clause, and, much to my surprise, the Leader of the House left it to the free vote of the House, and we carried the Clause by 226 to 116. I have had the Division analysed. There are certain great Olympians on the Front Beach who are called chief officers of State, and of these chief officers of State thirteen voted with us and only one against us. The matter went back to the House of Lords, who threw out our Clause and substituted a formless, hopeless Clause which is calculated to prevent the deportation of any enemy alien at all. It means that you have to make a complaint and
you have to give particulars, like a summons or particulars in the High Court, or a formal indictment, and the person can then be called upon to answer the particulars which have been given.
As the whole thing has to be done in a month or two it simply means that, in fact, nobody would be interfered with. The hon. and learned Member for York said, and I agree with him, that if the Lords had said, or if it were possible at this stage to say, "The worst quarrel we have is with the Germans and not with the Austrians," it might have been different. I do not entirely agree with all the good things said about the Austrians. The Austrians can be just as brutal as the Germans, and they have shown it. If they had suggested a compromise and said, "We do not want Austrians interfered with," I would say, "Well, I do not know how many have Austrian governesses, but I know that sonic have Austrian friends." If they had said that, this House would have met them by limiting the Clause to Germans. That is not what they have done. They have pat in this Clause a provision which to all intents and purposes kills any real prevention of these enemy aliens being in this country. Lord Phillimore said that, "Never before has this country ceased to treat enemies as practically friends as soon as they have ceased to be enemies" The people of this country are not prepared to treat Germans as practically friends. Superior people-like some of those who have spoken, particularly the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), who always moves in an atmosphere that is too rare for ordinary mortals, and other superior people of that sort, many of whom exist in the other House and a few, unfortunately, in this, may deplore this feeling on the part of the people. But there it is. Lord Salisbury says it is a passing impulse. Lord Salisbury only represents himself, and he always misrepresents the Unionist party. As one result of this question we hope to Heaven that he will cease to pose as, the chairman of the Reconstruction Committee. It will be my first business and those who think with me to see that that ridiculous position is stopped. He says that it is only a passing passion of the people. I do not believe it, and this House does not believe it. I would like to know how near these Noble Lords are to the people. They move either right above them or below them.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is it in order to have this attack upon Members of the House of Lords, sometimes by name and sometimes not by name? Is it consistent with the dignity and order of our proceedings?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not perefctly legitimate to consider the arguments by which this change was introduced in the other House, and to answer those arguments? Can we answer those arguments if we do not say what those arguments were?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The question before the, House is that this House does not disagree with certain of the Lords Amendments. It is desirable that the hon. and learned Member should confine his remarks to this question.

Sir E. WILD: I am sorry if I was in any way led to make an attack upon the friends of my hon. Friend opposite.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that they are not friends of mine.

Sir E. WILD: I will take your hint, Sir. I was not attacking anybody personally, but only their political views. I quite agree that it is undesirable, although a great deal has been said about us. However, it is undesirable to bring in personalities, and I will not do it again. The Bill came back to us, and then came the constitutional issue. When it came back to us the other night we debated it at some length, and again, to my surprise, the Government left it to a free vote of the House. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed, because. I thought it was the duty of the Government to support the free decision of this House. At all events, we could not complain in the result because on the free vote of the House we carried Lord Finlay's Clause by, I think, 128 votes to 66. Again I noticed, because I had the honour to be one of the Tellers, chief officers of State and Under-Secretaries one after another coming into the right lobby. After what had taken place one would have thought the Government was under some form of duty to do something in the other House, whether they succeeded or not, to let the other House know what the House of Commons thought. What happened was that Lord Onslow got up and moved our Clause, and there was no other spokesman
of the Government from start to finish. One after another of the Noble Lords who had already spoken in the previous Debate, and who are known by their pro-German views—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]

Sir E. WILD: I shall not retract that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it in order to call Members of the House of Losds "pro-Germans?"

Sir E. WILD: I did not say that. I said their "pro-German views."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it in order to accuse Noble Lords in the other House of having pro-German views?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When we are having a discussion on matters relating to another place it is desirable, in the interests of the decorum of this House, to be respectful to Members of another place.

Sir E. WILD: I will do my very best to be respectful, and can best do that by saying nothing more about them. But I am entitled to say this, that there was no Division, that there was no spokesman for the Government, except Lord Onslow, and that our views were not in any way put forward by the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Move a Vote of Censure on them.

Sir E. WILD: The Government has an unprecedented majority in this House, and one would suppose that it has some influence in the other House. However, here we are with this Bill hack again. I am not going to follow my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) into an attack on the House of Lords, hut we are here to consider their action, and in spite of any interruption, I am going to consider what is the constitutional principle. I am very much tempted to say that if the House of Lords chooses to take the responsibility of killing the Bill let them take it and justify their action afterwards; but I do feel the weight of what my hon. and learned Friend—who has done so much in this matter and who deserves our gratitude for his assiduity and zeal in draughtsmanship and in other ways—has said, and in spite of losing the principal Clause of the Bill in spite of losing the Clause which is the Clause we were returned to this House to support, there are many other good things
in the Bill, and rather than lose what is Left in the Bill, I, with the very greatest reluctance, will not oppose the Motion.

Captain W. BENN: If it seemed worth while I might pursue the hon. and learned Member in some of his arguments. He said it was within our power if we liked to reinstate our Clause and send it back to another place, and that the responsibility for killing the measure would rest with another place. That is totally in- accurate. We only have to decide now whether we will agree to the striking out of a Clause, and the responsibility for the fate of this measure rests absolutely with this House. It is constitutionally impossible for the Bill to be sent back again to another place, but we have been so accustomed to being inaccurate in the construction of the law—

Sir E. WILD: I asked the learned Attorney-General his opinion on the point, and I understood him to agree with the position I have put forward.

Captain BENN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, recently chastened by Mr. Justice Sankey—

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do not be insulting.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Sir G. EWART: If that is intended as a pleasantry. I will leave it to the House to say whether it is in good taste or bad; but, if it be seriously meant, protest against it in the strongest possible manner as a most improper observation with reference to a judge of the High Court who is not here and, to a case which, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, is the subject of appeal.

Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. May ask the hon. Member to say whether this is meant seriously or as a joke?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I remind the House of the terms of the Question which we are debating, and ask that hon. Members should confine their remarks to a discussion of that quetion?

Captain BENN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Captain BENN: If hon. Members will permit me to be heard, I need hardly assure the House that the remark I made was an ill-conceived pleasantry, which I withdraw unreservedly and immediately. I would not for a moment dream of doing
anything else. I am sorry that I was misled into it, though I would not like to accept the hon. and learned Member for York as an arbiter of what is in good taste. The hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon made a roost impassioned speech about the relations between the two Chambers and the iniquity that in this ease the other place should impose upon us this coercion. I have had the honour of being a fellow Member with the hon. and learned Member for a considerable time, but I do not recollect any of these protests being made by him when we were endeavouring to put into the hands of this House an instrument for the purpose of overcoming the very coercion of which he is now complaining.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I thought that I had made it quite plain in my speech that I regarded this as practically a unique case.

Captain BENN: If it were possible, we might chance an agreement on the lines that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have a Parliament Act for the purpose of enabling him to force through another House all the Bills which he supports, but that it would riot be available for other measures of which he disapproves, but that would lead us a long way from the point before the House I should be very sorry indeed by any pleasantry to hurt the feelings of the parents whom we see here to-day taking part in the funeral of Clause 9. Of course we must expect a certain amount of sorrow and anguish on the part of parents who find that the swaddling clothes of their infant are also its shroud. On this occasion we have a funeral which is the funeral of an election stunt. The hon. and gallant Gentleman read out a passage from the Prime Minister's speech, and I might read one from a speech of the Lord Chancellor to show that this was an election stunt produced in a hurry in a moment not of actual, but of prospective, reverse, to secure the support of the country.
Then we come to the course of events in this House itself. May I remind the House of what is the actual history of this puling, infant? The Bill was introduced without this Clause 9 at all. The Government proposed what steps they considered necessary for the safety of the Realm in a Bill which had not Clause 9 in it at all. The Bill was referred to a Standing Committee. In the Standing Committee the hon. and learned Member for York proposed this Clause, whereupon
the Government opposed the Clause and announced that it was not possible to accept it. Then the Bill came down on Report, and on a preceding Clause a totally different question arose in regard to keeping faith with French pilots. On that the Government, suffered defeat. After defeat on the question of the pilots, a conference took place between certain Members of this House and the Government representatives at Downing Street No bargain was made, but as a result of the conference the Government Motion for the rejection of Clause 9 was removed from the Order Paper. This Clause was proposed on Report by the hon. and learned Gentlemen who are its sponsors. Though it is quite true that a free vote was taken, the Leader of the House spoke strongly in favour of the Clause. Now that the Clause has been rejected, or, rather, amended and put into a more reasonable shape, in another place, I think that we shall all be glad that we have seen the last of what I may be permitted to call, both as regards the Government and the promoters of this Clause, a most unfortunate, if not discreditable, episode.

Sir H. NIELD: I have again and again in this House heard speeches from the Front Bench above the Gangway, and notably from the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Benn), distinctly opposed to the, best interests of the country, as declared by the electors themselves. There is never anything proposed in the interests of this country but it is opposed by the hon. and gallant. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Thank you!

Sir H. NIELD: I desire to say what I have, to say without any passion, if I can. The hon. and learned Member for Upton (Sir E. Wild) has mentioned that this Clause has been consistently supported in three Divisions by the principal members of the Government. They have shown that in their deliberate judgment it is a proper Clause. The Clause which went back, after foil debate, to another place, was a Clause which was framed by Lord Finlay which was intended to remove the criticism that had already been passed by some of the ordinary members of the other Chamber who are imbued with a. sense of their own importance, but who are consumed with sentimentality. This Clause was designed to remove any possibility of harshness, particularly towards women.
Every effort has been made to meet the other House with regard to these minor questions, while preserving the principal question, which was the affirmative policy against enemy aliens. There is no one who dare deny that the Clause which has been put in in another place and insisted upon last night is the very negation of any action at all; it is never intended that any alien should leave the country in future unless after being dealt with under the criminal law. I turn to the Debate in the other Chamber, and I notice that Lord New ton said:
We on our side—I am speaking of those who support the Amendment—the Labour party, and, as far as I know, the whole of the Bishops. We have every member of the tribunals that were set up to consider this question, with the exception of one individual, and last night I had the astonishing experience of hearing the official Leader of the Literal party in the House of Commons deliberately and ostentatiously thanking God for the presence of the House of Lords, a thing which I never expected to live to hear.
I hope the Noble Lord will not be disappointed in future. Whatever happens, never a finger shall be raised to save him from his friends, and I would say, with regard to the Noble Lord and the Labour party, that he forgets, if he ever took the trouble to try to analyse the feeling of the Labour party in this House, that the Labour party represents what is called the International—they want a kind of brotherhood all over the world's surface, which they know they will never get, and they are out of touch with the bond-fide workers in industry. If the Noble Lord thinks he has arty encouragement by citing the Labour party as supporting him, I wish him joy of it- in future, when the time comes for him to test its friendship. He spoke also about the Liberal party, avid its official head. I am not going to descant on the domestic trembles which attach to the Front Bench above the Gangway.

Mr. HOGGE: There are none.

Sir H. NIELD: The hon. Member says there are none, but the wish is father to the thought. He knows the troubles and how easily they show themselves, but I am not going to pursue that. I do say, and say deliberately, that the Noble Lord allies himself with a party whose tradition has always been that they are the friends of every country but their own. That is the company which is cited with approval by the Noble Lord. I would say that, although as a matter of constitutional practice it would be a vote to wreck this
Bill, we are not quite so dense in these days riot to know what is the right thing to do, and that the real responsibility rests with those sentimentalists who are determined to prevent any enemy alien leaving these shores, although the country has unmistakably declared that it wants to be quit of them. What is the evidence? This week I have had letters of protest from different parts of the country against the way in which aliens are creeping back, and are apparently getting preference. They are getting houses where a Britisher cannot; they are opening businesses where a Britisher cannot do so, and particularly a returned soldier. The Noble Lords have deliberately wrecked the important parts of this Bill, arid if I had my way they should wreck the whole Bill, because I think that that is the consistent position. We are not too blind, nor is the populace too blind or too uneducated, not to understand perfectly well that it is the action of that little coterie in another place, saturated with sentimentalism, who care nothing about the true interests of the workers of this country, and those Noble Lords will know in time to come that they have done a very grave disservice to their country by their action.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I would not have risen to take part in this Debate but for the charges of pro-Germanism and of being the enemy of your own country and all that kind of thing, which have been thrown about in so foolish a manner. I am not going to attempt to reply to those charges; they are not worth replying to. I am simply going to say that I vote on this Amendment because I believe that the form in which the Clause comes back to this. House is much more in the interests and to the honour of tins country than the form in which it was sent up from this House. I maintain strongly that this country is entitled to protect itself against dangerous aliens and dangerous people of all sorts. It is entitled to expel dangerous aliens. It is bound to do so where there is proved cause for doing so. The Clause as it went to the I louse of Lords, in my opinion and in the opinion of many patriotic people, went fat beyond what was necessary, and inflicted a great deal of hardship and cruelty and a great deal of unnecessary expense, upon this country in reconsidering the eases of thousands of people against whom there was not even the shadow of a prima facie case for expulsion. We believe that the Clause as it
comes back from the Lords does avoid that unnecessary expense to the country, and does avoid that cruelty to many quite innocent people, and at the same time it will give the country all the protection that it needs and will afford efficient machinery by which any dangerous person in this country can he singled out by the police or by any other responsible person so that that dangerous person may be expelled.

Colonel BURN: This Bill was passed by the unanimous vote of the House of Commons, or what might practically be called the unanimous vote of the House of Commons, and it was sent to another place. I think it is outrageous to have it thrown back into the face of this House after the long discussion that took place here, all sides being represented. When we were discussing the Lords Amendments two nights ago I heard the Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) refer to British fair play. There is no greater upholder of British fair play than I am, but first of all I claim British fair play for the British people. Anyone who knows the Germans as well as I do, anyone who realises the amount of harm done to this country not only before the War but during the War by those Germans who were here receiving our hospitality, anyone who knows what those men did by their espionage and their knowledge of the daily relations of British life, knows that they did more to prolong this War than anyone. To my knowledge the Germans were here living at our seaport towns, and all the time they were collecting evidence which would be of great value to the military party in Berlin. They knew what was going on here and how far we were prepared to fight them when "the day" arrived. We people alto have the interests of our own country at heart wish to make it impossible in future that that sort of thing can occur again. We have learned our lesson, and some of us in this House have learned a more bitter lesson than many; we have paid the penalty, the best that we had to give, and so we do not lightly forget. I have been in Germany, and I have known for many years past what was going on. I have, on public platforms, ever since I entered the political arena, foretold that this German war was as certain to come as the night follows the day, and every word that I have said has conic true. I, firmly and honestly believe that German
preparation for this War was greatly assisted by the knowledge that they got through their spies in this country. Personally I should like to go into the Lobby and reject the Lords Amendment, but I do not blind myself to the fact that by so doing we should wreck the Bill altogether and for that reason I mean to consider it. It is heartbreaking to those with whom I am associated, to feel that after all the work we have done, and the trouble we have taken to try and get on to the Statute Book a measure that would prevent the undesirable German living in this country, that the Lords in another place have entirely turned clown our proposal. I shall consult with my Friends as to what is the best course to take. I can only say that I feel convinced if we do not get the Bill, the whole Bill as we sent it to the Lords, that this country in the future will very seriously suffer.

Sir G. HEWART: May I at this hour make an appeal to the good sense of the House? It is quite clear there are some who approve of the course which was taken in another place, and that there are many who do not. The merits of the controversy have been entered into, not for the first time in this House, and I suggest that the moment has now come when the House might reach a conclusion on the Amendment.

Sir R. COOPER: The simple point at issue is this. After very mature consideration in this House we came to certain conclusions as to what is good arid necessary for the future welfare of the country. We sent all our proposals to another place, and they have been returned, and we are being forced by the Upper Chamber to take a decision which is contrary to the considered judgment of the people's elected representatives in this House. For my part that is a course to which I will never submit.

Sir W. DAVIDSON: As on each former occasion on this matter, the Government have removed their Whips,

may I ask if the same course cannot be observed to-day. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have invited us to discuss the Clause, and not to be guilty of any irrelevancies. Let us look at the point at issue before we give our votes. The whole point is that by the Clause as it left that House every enemy alien was to be deported unless he could show that he was an honest [...]citizen of this country. As the Clause comes back to us, it is provided that no enemy alien shall be deported unless somebody can make a charge against him and prove it. We know that before the War it was the apparently innocent people who were hunting in Ireland and in other places, who were really spies for the German people, and acquired information against this country, and those were people no charge could be brought against.

Sir G. HEWART: Hitherto when a vote has been taken, the question has been with regard to a particular proposal in the Bill. The question today is not that. The question to-day is whether the view taken by this House is that the questions involved in Clause 9 are so important that rather than give way upon them we are to sacrifice the whole of the Bill. In those circumstances it is not possible for the Government to take the course which is recommended and take off the Whips. In substance the life of the Bill is involved, and it would be necessary for the Government, which desires the Bill, to put on their Whips.

Captain S. WILSON: I wish to dissociate myself entirely, as a member of the Constitutional pasty, from the attacks that have been made by members of that 'Arty upon another place. I hope that this House will record their votes and support the action the House of Lords has taken.

Question put, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement with the said Lords Amendments, on which their Lordships have insisted."

The House divided: Ayes, 124, Noes, 31.

Division No. 165.]
AYES.
[3.12 p.m.


Adamsom, Rt. Hon. William
Birchall, Major J. D.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Berwick, Major G. O.
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)


Archdale, Edward M.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith.
Cozens-Hardy. Hon. W. H.


Baird, John Lawrence
Bowles, Col. H. F.
Dawes, J. A.


Baldwin, Stanley
Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Dockrell, Sir M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Britton, G. B.
Edge, Captain William


Barrle, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Buchanan, Lt.-Col. A. L. H.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Cautley, Henry Strother
Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Farquharson, Major A. c.
Keliaway, Frederick George
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Law, A. J, (Rochdale)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Seager, Sir William


Ganzoni, Captain F. J. C.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Gibbs, Col. George Abraham
Lonsdale, James R.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gilmour, Lt.-Colonel John
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Gaff, Sir Park
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Sutherland, Sir William


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Talbot. G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Greig, Colonel James William
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.)


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Neal, Arthur
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hailwood, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Aitrincham)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Wardle, George J.


Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waring, Major Walter


Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)
Parker, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hayward, Major Evan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


Henry, D. S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pearce, Sir William
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Williams, Lt.-Cc-m. C. (Tavistock)


Hinds, John
Pratt, John William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Holmes, J. Stanley
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wiiloughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley 'Hold'ness


Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Raw. LI. -Colonel Dr. N.
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, c.)


Inskip, T. W. H.
Reid, D. D.
Younger, Sir George


Irving, Dan
Renwick, G.



Johnstone, J.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord E.


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rothschild, Lionel de
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)




NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. William James
Hennessy, Major G.
Murray, William (Dumfries


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hogge, J. M.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Blair, Major Reginald
Hood, Joseph
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Bruton, Sir J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Seddon, James


Burn, Captain C. R. (Torquay)
Hurd, P. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simm, M. T


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Dean, Com. P. T,
Moles, Thomas



Gretton Colonel John
Morrison-Bell. Major A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir W.


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Murchison, C. K.
Davison and Sir Richard Cooper.


Hanna, G. B.




Question put, and agreed to.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Procedure for Compulsory Acquisition of Land, and Entry on Land to be Acquired.)

(1) For the purpose of the compulsory acquisition of laud under the foregoing provisions of this Act, the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect.

(2) Where an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land has been duly made under the provisions of this Act, then at any time after a notice to treat has been served the Board may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to each owner, lessee, and occupier of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the notice, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent or compliance with Sections eighty-three to eighty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, but subject to the payment of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken and interest on the compensation awarded as would have been payable if those provisions had been complied with.

Lords Amendment: After Sub-section (1), insert the following new Sub-section:
(2) No order for the compulsory acquisition of land made under the Provisions of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which at the date of the Order forms part of any park, or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house if the land is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house, or of any land which at that date forms part of any garden or pleasure ground, or which is woodland, not wholly surrounded by or adjacent to land acquired by the Board under this Act.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I may, perhaps, be allowed to explain that this Amendment affects only Part I. of the Bill. The position is that a similar Clause for the protection of home farms, parks, woodlands, and so on, was inserted in the corresponding English measure. Further, a Clause even more drastic in its terms than this particular proposal is already in the 1911 Scottish Act, and, therefore, a Clause which, as I say, is stronger in its terms than this, regulates
the procedure under Part II. of the Bill. It is now proposed to bring Part I. into line with Part II. in this matter, and the case for agreeing with the Lords in this matter is even stronger when I find a corresponding provision, not only in the Scottish Act of 1911, in the English Act of last year, but also in nearly every corresponding Statute dealing with the acquisition of land, such as even the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916. I have consulted the Board of Agriculture specifically with regard to this question, and I am informed that it is not anticipated that this provision, if it is inserted in the Bill, will be unduly hampering in effect. It only comes into operation, as the House will see, with regard to compulsory purchase, and one hopes that in most of these cases under Part I the purchase may be arranged by agreement rather than by compulsion, hut on the various grounds which I have mentioned I venture to recommend the House to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE: This Amendment of the Lords practically excludes the home farms from the possibility of small holdings being carved out. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend was quite right an saying that nearly all of us who have been interested in the question of small holdings in Scotland have taken the view that, as far as possible, the home farm should be excluded, and as I myself was the father of the Bill in which that was recognised, I do not feel that one could oppose this Amendment from the Lords right out. At the same time, I want to bring a case before my right hon. Friend which, I hope will receive his sympathetic consideration. It is very material to one part of Scotland where the question of small holdings is vital. There is one fact which has emerged since we discussed the Scottish Land Bills in the House of Commons, and that is the effect of the War. Indeed, this Bill is in the nature largely of emergency legislation. If the home farm is excluded in all cases, then I submit that the possibility of settling men on the land in the Islands and Highlands is somewhat remote. That is the ease I wish to make against this Amendment.
This morning I got a letter from a man in the islands who gives one or two apposite examples of the kind of thing to which I am referring. For instance, he gives a case in North Uist which is in the Outer Hebrides, where an estate of the name of
Bellrannel was confiscated from the adjoining crofters prior to the passing of the Crofters Act. This estate is of 2,000 acres, and is surrounded entirely by crofting townships. One of these townships, says my correspondent, is comprised of nineteen crofters, there being no other land except this estate from which to get enlargements, and he goes on to point out that those crofters have actually said, as many crofters have been saying in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, that they are going to take possession of the other land unless it can be obtained for them. He also gives me two examples in Sutherland. I know there are other Members of the House who represent the Islands and Highlands who have probably a number of examples in their mind. This correspondent gives an example in Sutherlandshire, where there is a certain community of nearly 1,000 souls, some with miserable patches of land, and where, like other places, the young men fought for their country in the recent War. He points out that if the home farm in those cases is not available, then the success of the Act may he jeopardised. After all, the home farm is going to be bought and compensation is going to be paid, and what I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend is whether the words suggested by the Lords could not modified in some way. I thought of tie words "exceptional circumstances," but I know that if I suggested Hose words ray right hon. Friend would say that there would be a difficulty in defining them. What I want to achieve is that particularly in the islands and Highlands the question of the home farm should occupy a different position from that in the rest of Scotland. I would suggest that we should compromise on this Amendment, and that in the case of the islands and Highland counties the home farm should be looked upon in a different category from the other counties in Scotland. I am sure, then, there would be sonic hope in those districts of the men, and partieuiarly the ex-Service men, getting a piece of land. I hope, my right hon. Friend will hold out some hope that we shall conic to terms with the House of Lords on that point. I think it is a fair compromise, and I know perfectly well that hon. Members who represent, those counties would approve of it.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I should hardly have thought in a case of this kind purchase should be made at all unless by agreement.
It would involve compensation if purchase were made against the owner of the home farm.

Dr. D. MURRAY: I should like to say a word in support of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Rogge). I would be quite willing, and I believe the landlords might. have been quite willing, to leave the matter to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, who, after all, are sensible men, but there are exceptional cases such as my hon. Friend referred to with which I am acquainted and connected with which I have had correspondence, where it might be hard, and would be a disabling enactment from the point of view of providing small holdings or extending existing holdings. If some loophole could be devised by the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend so that cases of that kind could be provided for, it would be an advantage. No one wants to disturb unnecessarily home farms or the demesne of the mansion house, but something must be done, seeing that the discretion of the Board of Agriculture is not approved by the House of Lords, taking up the cue of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I think some modification might be made.

Mr. MUNRO: By leave of the House, may I say that I think my hon. Friend has exaggerated the importance of the point of view that he has put forward, although I think I quite understand it. He will find that the class of cases with which this Amendment deals is an extremely narrow one. In the first place, it only comes into operation where compulsory acquisition of land takes place. The second limitation is this: He is quite wrong when he says that the home farm is excluded in all cases. If he would be good enough to look at the Amendment, he will see that it only deals with a particular class of home farm. It is not every home farm, but only those in which the land is required for the amenity or convenience of Lire mansion house. That is the only kind of home farm which is excluded by this Amendment. Any proposal to take compulsorily, under the powers of the Board of Agriculture, a home farm of that description, which is necessary for the amenity of the mansion house, would involve a ruinous compensation and would be most undesirable from that point of view alone. When my hon. Friend further remembers that it is only the 1911 Act in which this Clause appears, I put it to the
House and to my hon. Friend with some confidence, that, looking at the particular limitations with which this Clause is fenced that the prospect he indicates is really not likely to arise. If I thought it would, I would take ways and means to meet my lion. Friend. But honestly I do not think so.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not want to press this matter unduly, but we must remember what is going on in the Outer Hebrides practically every month. My right hon. Friend will remember, for instance, that from the island of Lewis alone 7,000 men joined the Colours, and there are some thousands of ex-Service men in that one island alone. There is the difficulty. I am not pleading for the rest of Scotland in putting forward my suggestions for extreme care in this matter.

CLAUSE6.—(Duty of Board with Respect to Salt or Lease of Land.)

(5) Before selling any land which, in the opinion of the Board, is not required for the purposes of this Act, and is suitable for afforestation, the Board shall consult time Forestry Commission and shall give the Forestry Commissioners an opportunity of acquiring such land.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "and" ["and is suitable for afforestation"], and insert instead there of the words
The Bird shall, subject as hereinafter provided, offer the land to time person from whom it was purchased, or his Successor in title, at a price to he determined, failing agreement, by the Scottish Land Court, provided that if in the opinion of the Board the land

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, I venture to suggest should also be agreed to subject to the consequential Amendment to which I shall indicate in a moment. The original form in which the Amendment came before the Committee was that the right of preemption should be given to the owner of the land. We arc here dealing with land which is not required for the purposes for which it is bought by the Board of Agriculture. There may be certain portions of an estate purchased which the Board find arc not needed for their purposes. The proposal made in Committee was that the landlord should have the right of preemption in these cases. I pointed out that was inconsistent with another provision in the Bill which gave the right to the Fores-
Try Commissioners of pre-emption in regard to this land. This Amendment has, by agreement so far as the Government is concerned in another place, been re-modelled and the effect of it will be, if the House agrees, that when you have some land which the Board of Agriculture does not require, it must first of all be offered to the Forestry Commissioners in case they should desire it for the purpose of their work. Failing the forestry Commissioners not wishing tins unneeded land, it will be offered to the landlord in case he should like to have it. The provision is that that shall be the operation before the Board goes into the open market to sell this land. This is quite a reasonable proposal. We thought so in another place. I suggest, therefore, that this Amendment should be accepted subject to the purely drafting consequential Amendment which I propose to move. The net result of this Amendment, if accepted, will be that the Board gets rid of land which it does not require, first offering it to the Forestry Commissioners, then to the landlord, and then in the open market

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), after the word "shall" ["the Board shall consult "], to insert the words "in the first instance"

Mr. HOGGE: I do not quite follow my right hon. Friend. He appears to be reading a different line to the one in the copy I have.

Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid there has been some difficulty in regard to getting an appropriate copy of the Bill. But perhaps I may read this Clause as it will run if the Amendment I propose be also inserted. It will read as follows:
Before selling any land which in the opinion of the Board is not required for the purposes of this Act the Board shall, subject as hereinafter provided, offer the land to the person from whom it was purchased, or his successor in title, at a price to be determined, failing agreement, by the Scottish Land Court provided that in the opinion of the Board the land is suitable for afforestation the Board shall in the first instance consult the Forestry Commission, and shall give the Forestry Commissioners an opportunity of acquiring such land.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUE 9.—:(Amendment of Section 7 of Act of 1911.).

For Sub-sections (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, in this Act referred to as the Act of 1911, there shall be substituted the following Sub-sections:

(Constitution of small holdings.)

(a) (8) Where the Board arc satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings and that suitable land is available for that purpose, it shall be the duty of the Board to prepare a scheme for the constitution of one or more new holdings on such land, to be occapied by new holders upon such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the L[...]ieuideis Acts as the Board think reasonable.
(c) Where the Board are satisfied that there is not available on the land on which the new holdings are to be constituted a supply of water sufficient for the holdings, they may include in the scheme provision for taking and conveying from or through any part of the estate whereof such laud forms part such supply of water is may be necessary for the new holdings and is not requited for the remainder of the estate; and for the purposes of this Section any land from or through which such supply of water is to be taken en convoyed shall be deamed to he comprised in the scheme.

(11)…(b)The compensation payable under this Sub-section shall not include—

(i) any allowance oh account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory;
(ii) any compensation for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate where of the land forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting, value of the land or estate; or
(iii) any compensation for injury done to the value of the spotting rights over such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were pat to the full possible use for which it coed be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants.

Lords Amendment: In substituted Substitution (8), at end of paragraph (a), insert the words
Provided that in co[...]deriug the relative suitability of land the Board shall have regard to the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The history of this Amendment is very familiar to my hon. Friends from Scotland. It was inserted in Committee. On the Report stage of the Bill I suggested that, as it seemed to me an immaterial Amendment, that it might disappear. The first reason why I suggested its discontinuance was that the Board of Agriculture would be bound to consider the relative suitability of land, whether the directions which the Amendment contains were inserted or not. The second reason is that in no part of the Bill is there any direction given to the Board to consider any particular factor in
the situation. They are bound to consider all the relevant factors, and to take out this one might lead to the possible exclusion or to the slighter consideration of other matters which it might be important to bear in mind. I have not altered my views which I expressed on the Report stage, but, looking to the attitude which I felt bound to take up previously, I think it will be consistent that this Amendment should disappear, and I suggest that we should disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In substituted Subsection (8, c), leave out the words "is not required for," and insert instead thereof the words, "which can be taken without detriment to the requirements of."

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is really of a drafting character, and no importance to the substance of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next five Amendments, which go together, are all privilege Amendments dealing with the compensation provided by the Bill, but it is open to the house to waive their privilege.

Sir G. YOUNGER: The original measure granted compensation to the landlord for any capital losses realised by the establishment of small holdings on his property. These Amendments deal with the Agriculture Fund, which provides £235,000 a year. Surely it is only right that the whole House should have something to say on this point?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has always been open to this House to waive its right, and hon. Members can take such a line as they desire.

Mr. MUNRO: I suggest that that would be the proper course to adopt. My suggestion is that privilege should be waived, and that we should discuss all these matters upon their merits. It would be much more satisfactory, rather than taking refuge on a technical objection. I am willing to do so, and I suggest that it would be the most satisfactory method. I hope the House will agree to that course.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is an occasion upon which we should not agree to waive
our privilege. These Amendments directly affect the fund which this House, after very careful consideration upstairs and on the floor of the House, has settled, and I am quite sure that the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate will admit that this Bill receives very careful consideration. There was no obstruction and no slurring over of material parts, but the whole measure was considered, and especially these Financial Clauses.

Sir G. YOUNGER: They were not actually agreed to.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If there was any charge against the way in which the Bill was rushed through, or if it had not received full discussion, perhaps that would have been a reason for waiving privilege, but as no such charge was made, I object to waiving our rights.

Mr. MUNRO: I make a serious appeal to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) to reconsider his action. I am sure he would be the last person to imperil the fate of this Bill, and if this measure is to be decided upon a matter of privilege I am afraid of its fate, at the stage of the Session we now find ourselves. I have had the honour of making this Motion on more than one occasion on previous Bills. In regard to the Education Bill, I remember I earnestly appealed to my right hon Friend to adhere to this attitude, and it is really not in the interests of this Bill and the ex-Service men we hope to settle on the land to risk its fate. I cannot do more than make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, and I think he may trust me to do the fair thing on the merits with regard to all the ensuing Amendments. I do not think he need have any fear on that matter. If he insists, of course I cannot stop him, but I make one last appeal to him not to persist.

Mr. HOGGE: We have not yet waived our objection.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for the House to decide.

Mr. MUNRO: I propose to invite the House to disagree with the first of these Amendments.

Mr. HOGGE: This is a question of privilege and the House of Lords has nothing whatever to do with it. I would like to know if it is in order for us to discuss it at all in this way, and can a Minister get up and propose that we
should accept it? I gathered that the Secretary for Scotland wishes to discuss certain Amendments in order that we may agree with certain things and disagree with others; but the position I take up is that we do not waive our privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER: My duty is to point out that certain Amendments are privilege Amendments, and it is open to the House to take whatever course it may think fit in regard to them. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to disagree with the first privilege Amendment, and on that I suppose there will be unanimity.

Mr. HOGGE: But we do not desire to waive our privilege at all. We regard this as a. question of privilege, and we do not want to discuss these Amendments at all, because the House of Lords has nothing to do with them. The House of Commons has already decided these matters.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid we are obliged to discuss them. What action the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) will take is for him to decide. I do not think we can decide that we cannot discuss them, and the House must either decide to agree or disagree with them.

Mr. HOGGE: That is the point. It is a question of privilege we are being asked to discuss one way or the other, and I am asking for information.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the Secretary for Scotland proposes to move in certain cases that this House waives its privilege, and we must conic to some conclusion. I cannot say when an Amendment comes down from the other place that I decline to submit it to the House on the ground that it is a question of privilege. My function is simply to warn the House that these are Amendments which violate the ordinary privilege of the House, and then it is for the House to decide whether they will accept them or whether, on the ground of privilege, they will reject them.
Lords Amendment: In substituted Subsection (11, b), leave out paragraph (ii.).

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
4.0 P.M.
We are so familiar, those Members who sat in the Scottish Grand Committee, with it that I do not think I need trouble the
House with the whole history of the matter. Under the former Act there were payments made in respect of depreciation of capital value. That was found to be subject to grave objections in the working of the Act, and, according y, a proposal was inserted in this Bill that, except in so far as the injury arose from depreciation in tile letting value, no compensation should he paid. In another place it was proposed to omit this paragraph, and it has, accordingly, disappeared. I suggesting that the Lords Amendment should be disagreed with, and I will state the reasons for that advice. In another place my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor indicated that, in the view of the Government, it would be a fatal Amendment to the Hill. It has also to be remembered that this Amendment to leave out this paragraph was not proposed at any stage of the Bill by any representative of any party in this house, and to reintroduce this system of payment for loss of capital value would be to reintroduce the system which wellnigh wrecked the Bill of 1911, with the possible and even the probable result that this Bill in operation would also prove to be unworkable. The compensation which was payable under the old Clause was so prohibitive that the machinery of that Act was brought to a standstill. If it were reintroduced into this Bill, therefore, it would tend to abridge the operation of the Bill and hamper the Board in acquiring land for settling ex-Service taco upon it. The purchase price would be so excessive that land in many cases could not be obtained, and to that extent interests of ex-Service men would suffer. I venture to suggest that this Amendment should not be agreed with, but at the same time I suggest, for the consideration of the House, that a consequential Amendment, winch I shall move on Clause 9, might be inserted in these terms:
Provided that. where any such landlord represents to the Secretary of Scotland that the Scheme ought not to be confirmed, the Secretary may, if he thinks lit, before giving his consent refer the scheme to the Land Court for inquiry and report.
That may be regarded as a certain protection by those who are interested in the matter. If it be so regarded, then, speaking for the Government, I am quite willing that they should have it. Therefore, the advice which I give to the House very respectfully is to differ with the Amendment now under discussion arid to insert that proviso in Clause 9.

Mr. A. SHAW: I am very glad to hear the Secretary for Scotland move to disagree with the Lords Amendment. The position to-day in Scotland is this: There was a great influx of soldiers after the War for settlement on the land, and, in the second place, bound up with the problem of laud settlement, is the much larger problem of sweeping away the abuses of the existing Act of 1911. All who have been for years past in touch with the Scottish land problem will realise the damage which was done through the Act of 1911 by the attempts at compromise in the later stages of the passage of that measure, and they will also realise the great difficulty which would ensue if the Amendment made to the present Bill in another place is allowed by this House. I go so far as to say that the effect of the Amendment made in another place is to sweep away more than one-half of the useful character of this measure. The House will remember the essence of the abuses which exist under the Act of 1911. This measure, as it left this House, was intended to sweep away the abuse of fancy compensation for injurious affection and other matters. There were in the Act of 1911 provisions for compensation wide and sweeping and purely fancy in their character, which rendered the operation of the Act of 1911 largely a farce. Scottish Members will remember that the result, as instanced in the Lindean case, in which the letting value of land had been increased by the constitution of small holdings upon it, and there was payable to the landlord a very large sum in fancy compensation. The effect of that provision was that it acted as a barrier to land settlement.
It was quite truly said by the Lord Chancellor in another place that if similar principles to those which the House of Lords seeks to enshrine in this Act had been applied in the case of the railways or of any other great public undertakings in this country in the past, then this country., instead of leading the world in industrial enterprise, would have been far behind. We should all have been worse off, even the landlords, and therefore, it seems to me an extremely short-sighted view for the other place to take that they themselves, or those whose interests they represent, will be better off by reason of the course of action which they have proposed. There is another point which arises in this connection. I do not suppose that those who were present in the Scottish Standing Committee
are under any illusion as to the effect this Amendment will have on the useful character of the Act. The Government at the last election gave certain pledges to the Scottish people, and on those pledges the Scottish people repose their trust in the Government. The proposal to carry out these pledges was, very properly, introduced by the Government into this Bill, which was considered with great care and in great detail by the Scottish Grand Committee. It represents great unanimity of opinion among all parties in Scotland, and this is illustrated by the fact that on the Report stage my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) did not propose an Amendment of this nature or press it to a Division.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I certainly never moved an Amendment of this kind, and I did not interfere in the Debate, except to propose seine small modification in one or two cases.

Mr. SHAW: Even the most reactionary elements in this House never ventured to go half so far as the other House has done, and I again repeat that, in view of the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee did consider this matter with care and in much detail, and arrive at its decisions with such unanimity, I hold that under the circumstances it would be not only a breach of faith to the Scottish people, but would be clearly lacking in dignity, if this House took up this reactionary attitude at the present time. The Government, on this matter, have really shown sincerity as a Coalition Government, for progressive legislation, and this Bill is one which is calculated to do enormous good to the Scottish population, while, from the point of view of political strategy, which, of course, my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench never consider, it is calculated to do enormous good to the Coalition Government. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, who is perhaps the leading exponent in this House of the views embodied in this Amendment from the other place, will use his influence with his colleagues and induce them to back up the Government in assuming the dignified and the only proper attitude of supporting those who totally object to this reactionary Amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM: I should like to ask whether, assuming that we disagree with this Amendment from another place, such
disagreement will have the effect of ruling out a discussion on the subsequent proposal to insert another proviso in place of this Clause?

Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that if the House disagree with this Amendment, it will as a consequence agree to the one proposed to he substituted by the Government.

Mr. MUNRO: May I be allowed to say that when we reach the Amendment to which my hon. Friend referred, I propose to move that the House disagree with the terms of that Amendment?

Mr. GRAHAM: Could we not with the leave of the House consider the two Amendments together?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the two matters do hang together, and, as I understand it, the Government propose to ask the House to disagree with both.

Sir G. YOUNGER: We shall have to be careful what action we take, because in dealing with this Clause, we may deprive the Bill of its very centre. I do not follow the argument of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Shaw), who has suggested that I represent a reactionary element in this House. I think the same view was expressed by his own father in the other House. It is all very amusing and interesting, but it is not correct. We are here up against what might be a serious difficulty between the two Houses. The Government has asked for an enormous concession in this Bill. They are alto gether changing the basis of compensation. It is true that no one in this House moved that the principle of capital value should be imposed in its entirety, but I did move an Amendment—to which the Lord Chancellor gave some consideration in the other House and was kind enough to say that it was a reasonable Annindment—mitigating to some extent what I thought to be the hardship of this change in the case of small proprietors. The Scottish Grand Committee and my right hon. Friend did not see their way to accept that, because, I suppose, it was thought that it offended some principle. I thought it fair and just, and another reactionary in the form of the Lord Chancellor apparently thought so, too, because he said that if it were introduced into the House of Lords he would consider it. It was not however, put forward.
I take it that the excision of this Clause is not intended so much to defeat the main principle of the Bill as to give the Government an opportunity of suggesting in what nay they propose to mitigate the hardship. When we are in the difficulty of a possible conflict between the two Houses, what is the best thing to do? One House tries to draw the other. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes fails. In this case the other Rouse has not altogether failed, because my right hon. Friend has suggested a very moderate Amendment which would, at all events, give some kind of guarantee against grave mistakes or blunders being committed by the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture is a standing difficulty between my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and myself. He likes people who have been proved to have made mistakes. I do not. That is why I distrust the people to whom the whole of this arrangement is going to be handed over. I am quite sure the Amendment suggested by the Secretary for Scotland will be an improvement. The very moderate provision that in certain cases the Secretary for Scotland may submit a scheme to the Land Court for its approval before it is carried out, does not in any way infringe the principle of the Bill, but it gives a certain measure of protection against mistakes which is desirable in view of our past experience. The whole difficulty has arisen because of the blunder of the Board of Agriculture in putting small holdings in unsuitable places and refusing offers of land which wins suitable for small holdings. We do not want to see these mistakes occur again. I hope the present Amendment will be disagreed with, and that the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend will be accepted.

Dr. MURRAY: The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) apparently has splendid opportunities of diagnosing the meaning of Amendments that come from the House of Lords. He told us that this Amendment was not meant seriously, but is a mere instrument for bargaining with the Secretary for Scotland as to what concession he will make. Therefore, I will not deal with it seriously, except to say that I agree with the Motion made by time Secretary for Scotland. I am seriously disturbed, however, about the concessions that the Secretary for Scotland seems disposed to make. It seriously affects one of the chief virtues of the Bill. The object of the Bill
is to short-circuit the process of getting men settled on the land. Under the old Acts, after the Board of Agriculture had devised a scheme they had to submit it to the Land Court. In this Bill the Land Court is eliminated, and on that account especially we welcomed it. I do not object to the Land Court. I have much more faith in the Land Court and in the Board of Agriculture than the bon. Member for Ayr Burghs. It did, however, make for delay, with the consequence that before come of these schemes were approved the men who had applied for the land got so tired that they gave up the idea altogether. I am afraid that this is a retrograde step on the part of the Secretary for Scotland. It is a concession to influences brought to bear upon him in the House of Lords. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet; the Member for Ayr Burghs had anything to do with that or not. I admit that it is in the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland to decide whether a scheme shall be submitted to the Land Court. The hon. Baronet says he tracts the Land Court but not the Board of Agriculture. I believe he trusts the present Land Court but not all Land Courts. Similar Land Courts may come again.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I will take my chance.

Dr. MURRAY: This House has already decided against taking chances, Premium Bonds and things of that sort. If the hon. Baronet is going to trust one Court he should trust another. The Board of Agriculture is just as likely to do the right thing in this matter to all concerned as is the Land Court. I object to this roundabout process, because resort will always be had to it. The landlords will always apply to the Secretary for Scotland against the Board of Agriculture, and the Secretary for Scotland will practically be forced to refer a scheme to the Land Court. That makes for delay in settling upon the land ex-soldiers and sailors who require small holdings. For that reason I strongly object to the modifications suggested by the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. MUNRO: May I say a few words in reply to what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite (Dr. Murray). Let us make no mistake about it if the concession is granted whereby capital value disappears, and it is replaced by letting value, it is a very large and important concession There can be no about
that. If we can get rid of that drawback, which was the chief drawback to the Act of 1911, we get rid of a great deal. I am sure my hon. Friend will not differ from that. What is offered in exchange? This simple Amendment I am going to move at the end of this Clause. May I read to the House its terms, so, that its limitations may be appreciated' I have slightly altered it, and it will come in at a later point in the Bill instead of an earlier point. The Amendment is at the end of Clause 9 to add a new paragraph:
(g) Where any landlord interested represents to the Secretary for Scotland that a proposed scheme ought not to tie confirmed, the Secretary for Scotland may, before giving his consent to the scheme, refer the same to the Land Con t for inquiry and report.
The House will be kind enough to observe, the limitations contained in that proposal. In the first place there must be a report. My hon. Friend says there always will be. I do not agree with him, though there will be in certain cases. When it is made there is no binding obligation on the Secretary for Scotland to refer the matter to the Land Court. He is responsible to this House for his conduct.. If he thinks it is a proper case to refer, no doubt it will be referred. If on the other hand, in his judgment, it need not be referred the scheme will be forthwith confirmed. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend should almost suggest distrust of the Land Court.

Dr. MURRAY: On account of its delay.

Mr. MUNRO: I think my hone Friend is making, too much of that. This is quite am exceptional case which will not often occur, and, so far as delay is concerned, I am not aware that the Land Court, with its new duties and functions as defined by this Act, will be open to the charge of delay as it might have been in the past with very different and much inure various, and numerous ditties. I do riot think that is a sound argument. I, therefore, put it to the House that a concession such as this, so carefully framed as to deal with exceptional cases, is one which they would be well advised to accept, and the concession gained in exchange for it is one of very great importance indeed.

Lords Amendment: In paragraph (b, iii.), Leave oat the word "possible," and insert instead thereof the word "reasonable."

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next two Amendments relate to the same matter. They all deal with what is known as the sporting values Clause, and I propose to advise the House to agree with all three. I will read the terms of the Clause as it will run if these Amendments be accepted:
Any compensation for injury done to the value of the sporting rights over such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the lands or estates were put to the full reasonable use for which it could be let under ordinary lease to ordinary agricultural or pastoral tenants.
The alterations are really immaterial. In the preparation of the Clause as we intended to propose it, the words to be used varied from time to time. At one time the word "reasonable" was in the Clause instead of "possible." I think it is a very fair Amendment which does not unduly weaken the Clause.

Mr. HOGGE: I very much hope we are not going to agree to this suggestion. I have moved more than once in Committee the very words which my right hon. Friend proposes to accept in regard to other definitions, and I have been continually met with the argument that no one can define what "reasonable" means. What we put in as the Bill left this House was "the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants." This is a very old story. No one now wants to engage in the old controversy about deer forests, unless perhaps the Prime Minister does, having dealt with it many years ago. The difficulty that suggests itself to me is that it is surely much more easy to say what should be the full possible use of the land for agricultural purposes than it is to say what should be the reasonable use, and I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should adhere to the word we adopted in the Scottish Grand Committee. The difficulty will arise again further on with regard to compensation. If this is accepted it will surely interfere with the basis of compensation which is determined in another part of the Bill. It is perfectly easy to fix a maximum datum line of "full possible use." It is very difficult to express the connotation of the word "reasonable." What may be reasonable to the Board of Agriculture, for instance, might be quite unreasonable to the owner from whom the forest is being taken and there
may be a very great difference between the two words "agricultural" and "pastoral," which is again modified by the insertion of the words "ordinary lease." I appeal to my right hon. Friend to leave the words as they stand as being much more comprehensible than the words which are proposed to be inserted. Someone will have to discuss this. It could be argued one way and the other as to what was reasonable and what was unreason able, and I can conceive easily the arguments which might be used on the one side and on the other to prove what might be reasonable and what might be unreasonable, say in one part of the Highlands of Scotland and in another part. Who is to decide it?

Mr. MUNRO: The decision of the matter will rest with the Land Court. I think my hon. Friend trusts the Land Court.

Mr. HOGGE: There have been certain Land Courts which I have trusted. I have trusted them all but a great many Members have not, and have had extraordinary difficulty as the result. In any case, it would be much easier for the Land Court, having decided what should be the fall possible use, to adhere to that than to waste their time by having discussed in front of them what is the reasonable use to which a certain tract of land should be put. Take one of the Highland counties, and assume that you are going to take land away from a number of deer forests. Before it could be done it has to he argued before the Land Court what is the reasonable use of that particular patch of land.

Sir G. YOUNGER: It is limited to agricultural land.

Mr. HOGGE: It is covered; it is not limited. The only two objects for which we desire the land are for agricultural or pastoral tenants. My point is that we have had the Land Courts crowded over and over again with discussions of cases, and here you are going to add to the work of the Land Court. Supposing my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) was the owner of land and I was the person who was wishing to secure it for agricultural and pastoral use. We should go before the Land Court and bring arguments, by counsel or otherwise, as to whether the object for which it was being acquired was a reasonable use. We ought to have a Plimsoll line, and that line ought to be the full possible, which is
a standard that can be defined and laid down by the Land Court. We ought to get rid of all these discussions. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is creating trouble by agreeing to these words.

Dr. MURRAY: I cannot understand the word "ordinary." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain it.

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) chiefly objects because the word "reasonable" is substituted for the word "possible." He says the word "reasonable" is difficult of interpretation. It may be in some circumstances, but he knows as well as I do that that test is applied under countless Statutes and without the least difficulty in practically every single case that comes before the law. The word "possible" would be as difficult of interpretation under the varying circumstances as the word "reasonable." If anyone suffers by the insertion of the word "reasonable," I should think it would be the landlord. The Land Court is to decide, and the landlord, apparently, is willing to take his risk of the decision of the Land Court. Does my hon. Friend decline to do so? If so, I should be surprised.

Mr. HOGGE: I think it is a waste of time.

Mr. MUNRO: I do not think it would waste a single moment longer than would be the ease it the word "possible" were, inserted. The history of this matter in another place was that the whole Clause restricting sporting land disappeared at the Committee stage. It was restored substantially by agreement with the Government in the present form on Report stage, and I should be sorry at this stage to disturb what was really a compromise arrived at after consultation. That would lead to a great deal of trouble which we can will afford at this stage of the Session. The attitude taken up by those who moved to delete the Clause on the Committee stage was that they would be satisfied if we put in the language now proposed. I do not see that there is any material difference between the Clause as drafted and the Clause as amended in another place. The hon. Member says that these words admit of a sinister interpretation. So far as my opinion goes, there is no material difference between the Clause as originally drafted and the Clause now proposed. An agreement was arrived at between the Lord Chancellor and those interested in the matter, and I should be
most unwilling to disturb that compromise. It is a good arrangement for the benefit of the Bill, and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend to withdraw any farther opposition.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I supported my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) in Committee in regard to the sporting Clause, and I appeal to him, under the circumstances related by the right hon. Gentleman, to give way. I agree with him that the word "possible" is better than the word "reasonable," but in view of the compromise—and I presume there was some difficulty in obtaining that compromise—I think he might accept it.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not want to be unreasonable. What troubles me is this: that if my right hon. Friend thinks there is no difference between the words supplied by the Lords and our own words, and if he finds that those who supported him on the Bill prefer our own Clause, personally I prefer infinitely to accept my right hon. Friend's words and phraseology rather than the phraseology of the Lords. Take the proposed insertion of the word "ordinary" before the words "agricultural or pastoral tenants." I may be stupid, but what is the object of introducing the word "ordinary" This Bill is to deal with the cases of ex-Service men and others. Supposing you have in some parts of the highlands a division of land for agricultural purposes. You may have a discharged soldier who is doing something else and who requires land, not for ordinary agricultural or pastoral purposes, but to enable him to make his livelihood. Will the word "ordinary" exclude that man? That is a fair point to put. "Ordinary," I presume, means tenants who at present are engaged in ordinary agricultural or pastoral pursuits. What is an extraordinary agricultural or pastoral tenant? Who is he? The discharged man for whom this Bill has been drafted is not an ordinary pastoral and agricultural tenant. He is in a different position.

Sir G. YOUNGER: It would exclude the market gardener.

Mr. HOGGE: If so, I strongly oppose it, because in very many parts of Scotland it is just the little bit of market gardening that the discharged soldier can do in addition to other work, that makes it likely that he can maintain himself on the land. All those things have been the cause of
litigation in Scottish Courts for many years and we have got no "forrader" with land legislation. The Smallholders Act is one instance. May I put it, as to whether tins new Clause is water-tight so as to allow ex-Service men to engage on any work on the land which will enable them to live? I do not like the word "ordinary" being inserted. I might agree to the others if my right hon. Friend would agree in this case to leave out the word "ordinary "before agricultural or pastoral. If my right hon. Friend agreed to that we might come to a decision.

Dr. MURRAY: I was in doubt as to what these additional words mean. We have been told by the Prime Minister more than once to suspect even words coining from the House of Lords sometimes. I did think that there was some meaning in it and we have found one other interpretation from an hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) who says, for instance, that an extraordinary use of the land would be for market gardening. That is to say if it could be proved that the land was capable for being used for market gardening purposes, the compensation should be three times higher.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Sporting rights and those sort of things. You could not have a market garden in a deer forest.

Dr. MURRAY: I am sorry that I did not appreciate my right hon. Friend's joke. I thought he was in earnest when he said market garden. Even sporting rights arc not confined to deer forests. Sporting rights might apply to land quite suitable for market gardening, so that there is some significance in the word "ordinary" after all, and I am sorry that the Secretary for Scotland is inclined to accept this Amendment.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: Is it not a fact that putting in the word "ordinary" before agricultural will exclude the tenant with a subsidiary occupation I In my opinion that is the only meaning that can he given to it. Whether it is the intention or not, it seems clearly to be the

effect of the Amendment, and oppose it as strenuously as I can. With regard to the insertion of these three words "under ordinary lease" after "let," it seems to me to exclude the tenant, who has any land not under lease, but holds on a year to year agreement. Why should he be excluded? I see no reason. While I might be prepared to compromise in accepting the word "reasonable" instead of "possible," I am not going to consent to the acceptance of the other two Amendments.

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friends both persistently ignore the compromise which I have narrated to the House. This is really the only objection, which I have to some of the proposals which have been made ft I accept one of these proposals to omit the word "reasonable" or "ordinary," the result is that the Bill will go back to another place and may have to come back here. This is Friday afternoon and Prorogation is to be on Tuesday, and a great deal of work still has to be done.

Mr. HOGGE: We can sit on Wednesday.

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend, as usual, is quite heroic. That is my only objection to accepting some of the suggestions made. The word "ordinary" does not matter one way or another You are to deal with a person bona bond fide engaged in agricultural or pastoral pursuits as distinguished from a person engaged in freak agricultural or pastoral pursuits, if there be such a person. With regard to the objection of my hon. and gallant Friend, that persons engaged in subsidiary occupations or persons holding a tenancy from year to year would be excluded, if that is his objection it is founded. The matter has been fully discussed. Seeing the stage of the Session in which we are, and the peril in which this Bill might be placed by further journeys between the two Houses, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"

The House divided Ayes, 120, Noes, 14.

Division No. [66.]
AYRS.
[4.53 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)
Borwick, Major G. O.


Allen. Lt. Col. William James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-


Archdale Edward M.
Barrie. Charles Coupar (Banff)
Britton, G. B.


Archer-Shee. Lieut. -Colonel Martin
Beck, Arthur Cecil
Bruton, Sir J.


Astor, Viscountess
Benn. Com Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Buchanan. Lt.-Col A. L. H.


Baird. John Lawrence
Betterton. H. B.
Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William J.


Baldwin, Stanlay
Blair, Major Reginald
Burn, Captain C. R. (Torquay)


Burn, T. H. (Bellast)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Raeourn, Sir William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Raw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hurd, P. A.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Johnstone, J.
Rees, Sir J. D.


Coales, Major Sir E. F. (Lewisham, W.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Seager, Sir William


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Seddon, James


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd, George Butler
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Dixon, Captain H.
Lonsdale. James R.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


0Dockrell, Sir M.
Lorden, John William
Taylor, J, (Dumbarton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Elliot, Captain W. E, (Lanark)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B, M.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Farquharson, Major A. C.
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Wallace, J.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.
Wardle, George J.


Ganzoni, Captain F. J. C.
Moles, Thomas
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gibbs, Col. George Abraham
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col J. T. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Goff, Sir Park
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Green. J. F. (Leicester)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Greer. Harry
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Greig, Colonel James William
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Parker, James
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds-)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Henderson, Major Vivian L.(Tradest'n)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Younger, Sir George


Henry, D. S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pratt, John William



Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Captain


Hinds, John
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Guest and Lord E. Talbot,


Hope, James Filzalan (Sheffield)




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Irving, Dan
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Bower man, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)



Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. — Mr.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Rose, Frank H.
Hogge and Maj. McKenzie Wood.


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)



Question put, and agreed to.

In paragraph (b, iii.), after the word "to" ["to agricultural or pastoral tenants "], insert the word "ordinary."—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment: At end of paragraph (b, iii.), insert
(iii) Any compensation for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the remainder of the estate of which the land comprised in the scheme forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of such remainder".

—Disagreed with.

Amendment made: At end of Sub-section 11, insert new paragraph:
(g) Where any landlord interested represents to the Secretary for Scotland that a proposed scheme ought not to be confirmed, the Secretary for Scotland may, before giving his consent to the scheme. refer the same to the Land Court for inquiry and report."— [Mr. Munro]

Lords Amendment: After Clause 9, insert Clause A,
A. Where the Board make any Order for the constitution of new holdings they shall, if so requested by the landlord, he bound to erect and maintain, or cause to be erected and maintained, such march fence, or fences, as may be necessary to prevent the stock of the land holder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme, any dispute as to the necessity for or the adequacy of such fence or fences to be settled failing agreement by the land Court.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment also raises the question of privilege; it imposes an additional charge.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the House doth waive its privilege, and agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that where new holdings are situated, or where existing holdings are being enlarged, there may be an obligation placed upon the Board of Agriculture to erect and maintain fences. An Amendment something similar to this was moved in Committee, and I was unable to accept it as moved. That Amendment was in the following terms:
Where the Board make any Order under the immediately preceding Section they shall, if so
requested by the Land Court, be bound to erect arid maintain, or cause to be erected and maintained, to the satisfaction of the landlord of the land comprised in the scheme, and of any adjoining land, such march fence or fences as may be necessary to prevent the stock of the landholder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme. Any dispute as to the adequacy of such fence or fences shall be settled, failing agreement, by the Land Court.
I took objection to that proposal. The present proposal differs from that in three separate particulars. In the first place, under that Amendment it was proposed that the fencing must be maintained to the satisfaction of the landlord of the land comprised in the scheme. That disappeared from the Amendment which was inserted in another place. In the second place, it was provided that it must be to the satisfaction of the landlord of any adjoining land. That also disappears from the Amendment inesrted in another place. In the Amendment I refused to accept there was a proposal that any dispute as to the adequacy of such fence or fences should be settled by the Land Court. In the Amendment proposed to be accepted now the words "necessity for or adequacy of such "are inserted. That is to say, the Land Court is to be the judge as to whether there should be a fence at all, and, secondly, if there is to be a fence, to judge of its adequacy. The other Amendment postulated the existence of fences. These are the three differences between the Amendment not accepted and the Amendment which I advise the House to agree to, and which was inserted in another place. The fencing in question will be a very great convenience, not only to the landowner but to the landholder for his protection and benefit, and inasmuch as the whole matter is referred to the Land Court, which has to judge in the light of experience of particular circumstances, I suggest that it is an eminently fair and reasonable proposal to which assent might be given.

Mr. HOGGE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think it is a mistake to agree with the Lords in this Amendment? Why should not the landowner or tenant of the, deer parks keep his deer clear of the land of the smallholder? That is the point. This Amendment suggests that you may impose upon the smallholder the altogether unnecessary and heavy burden of maintaining a fence to the satisfaction of somebody, the Land Court if you like, because
there are deer outside that holding which insist upon coming on to it. The onus of protecting the smallholder from the ravages of the deer is not the business of the smallholder, but ought to be put on the tenant of the deer forest or the owner of it. Every attempt we make in Scotland to put people on the land off which they have been driven in the past meets with some difficulty of this kind. I see the Irish Secretary present, and I have listened to many speeches bf his on this very subject. He represents a Highland constituency, and is a member of the same Government as the Secretary for Scotland, who now says that he would have his support on this occasion. If that is so, all I can say is that it is marvellous how quickly office alters the view of a man who represents a Highland county, because both in writing and in speech he has made this point. I will not agree to this. It is perfectly monstrous that after all this effort and all this time the House of Lords should suggest an Amendment of this kind, which in many districts in Scotland will prevent the tenant having a fair chance of making good on his small holding.

Sir G. YOUNGER: How?

Mr. HOGGE: Because of the depredation caused by the incursion of deer on to the small holding.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment does not refer to deer, but to the stock of the landholder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme. A stock fence is not the same as a deer fence.

Mr. HOGGE: May I suggest it has a very great deal to do with deer, and when the Amendment was introduced on the Report stage it was one of the arguments used. This Amendment does not mention cattle at all, but mentions stock. There is no use shutting our eyes to this difficulty, which is the one problem that is acute in many parts of the country. The smallholder dare not even shoot the deer which conies on to his holding because of the inadequate protection against the deer forests.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I wish to ask a question from a different point of view. As far as I understand the Amendment, it lays on the Board of Agriculture the obligation of erecting and maintaining this march fence. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the fence is as much in the interests
of the smallholder as of the landowner. That being so, I am inclined to raise the question of mutual maintenance of such fences, and I think many of them are now so maintained. It seems to me reasonable to suggest that the landowner should at least be called on to make his contribution to a protection which, by consent of the Front Bench, is as much in his interests as in the interest of the smallholder. I do not quite see why the whole obligation should fall on the Board.

Dr. MURRAY: Some of these fences might extend for miles and miles, and the Board of Agriculture might naturally be reluctant to engage in an undertaking which would involve so much cost. As to keeping sheep, the crofter is not anxious to have his sheep confined on his own side. He has absolutely no interest in erecting fences unless the right hon. Gentleman would propose to erect fences round the arable part of the croft, and that would be a very valuable addition.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the different system which exists in other parts of the country on this subject I

Dr. MURRAY: As a matter of fact, in many parts of the Highlands the sheep stock mingle together on the common moor. The chief objection to this proposal is the cost, and that in that way it may affect the action of the Board of Agriculture in constituting small holdings. The people who go to shoot deer and who have made their millions are perfectly well able to pay for any fences which require to be erected. It could be put on to the rents and easily got from them.

Mr. MUNRO: In answer to the fair and relevant question as to whether there ought not to be a mutual obligation on the proprietors and on the Board to maintain the fences, it is true that, according to the laws of Scotland, when you have two properties side by side and there is a fence between them, the liability is mutual upon these adjoining proprietors to maintain the fence. But that is not the kind of case with which we are dealing here at all. We are here dealing with the case of one property. The Board comes, takes a part of that property for its own purposes, to settle ex-Service men, carves a piece of the property up, and thereby renders a fence necessary, and the justification for placing the obligation on the Board to maintain the fence is just that, that apart from the
intervention of the Board, there would be no need for a fence at all. In these circumstances it seems to me that it is a perfectly. fair arrangement, having excised all the objectionable features of this Amendment as originally drawn, to give effect to the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper, and even the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), with all his ingenuity, was unable to put forward any real objection on the merits.

CLAUSE 14.—(As to Land within Burgh in Crofting Counties.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-six of the Act of 1911, or in the reference to that paragraph' in Sub-section (4) of the said Section, a person may be held, as from and after the commencement of this Act, an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder, and shall be admissible to registration as a new holder under the Act of 19i, in respect of land within the Parliamentary, police, or municipal boundary of any burgh or police burgh situate in the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Suterland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words
may be held, as from and after the commencement of this Act, an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder, and.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would like to explain the exact meaning of this Amendment, which deals with land suitable for small holdings within burghs. Under the Bill as it stands, Clause 14 stereotypes all existing small holdings in burghs, under whatever circumstances these circumstances may have been constituted. The proposal made in another place would be to make available in every burgh the land which is so occupied for small holdings, and to leave it to the Board to determine whether or not the land should be so used. In other words, according to the Bill as it stands, these small holdings are automatically stereotyped, however they may have been constituted when originally constructed, whereas the proposal now made is that it should be remitted to the Board to consider the particular circumstances of each of these small holdings in the burghs. If the Board thinks it proper that there should be a small holding, then there will be a small holding, but if, on the other band, the Board thinks it inappropriate, it will refuse permission to consecrate the ground as a small holding. I submit that in the public interest the latter is the
fairer arrangement, and the House will observe that no existing right is in any way disturbed, the whole matter being committed to the fair discretion of the Board of Agriculture.

Ordered That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Munro, Major M'Kenzie Wood, Mr. W. Graham, Dr. Murray, and Captain Elliot.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately. —[Mr. Munro.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 8. —(Sessions and Duration of Governor's Legislative Council.)

(1) Every local legislative council shall continue for three years from its first meeting: Provided that—
(a) the council may be sooner dissolved by the governor; and.

Lords Amendment: Leave out tile word local," and insert instead thereof the word governor's."

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I should like to explain on this one Amendment that there is not a single one of this rather long series of Amendments which makes any alteration of substance in the Bill at all. They are, in the main, drafting Amendments, due to a reexamination of the Bill, and the only exceptions to that are exceptions which make the meaning clearer but do not alter the effect of the measure.
Question put, and agreed to.

CAUSE 13.—(Procision for Case of Failure to Pass Legislation.)

(1) Where a local legislative council has refused leave to introduce, or has failed to pass in a form recommended by the governor, any Bill relating to a reserved subject the governor may certify that the passage of the Bill is essential for the discharge of his responsibility for the subject, and thereupon the Bill shall, notwithstanding that the council have not consented thereto, be deemed to have passed, and shall on signature by the governor become an Act of the local legislature in the form of the
Bill as originally introduced or proposed to be introduced in the council or (as the case may be) in the form recommended to the council by the governor."

CLAUSE 31. —(of India)

The following Amendments shall be made in Section three of the principal Act in relation the composition of the Council of India, the, qualification, term of office, and remuneration of its members:
(1)The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall have effect as though "eight" and "twelve" were substituted for "ten" and "fourteen" respectively, as the minimum and maximum number of members, provided that the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the council at the time of the passing of this Act shall not be affected by this provision.

Lords Amendment Leave out the words
the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the council at the time of the passing of this Act shall not be affected by this provision,

and insert instead thereof the words
the council, as constituted at the time of the passing of this Act, shall not be affected by this provision, but no fresh appointment or reappointment thereto shall be made in excess of the maximum prescribed by this provision.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Further Provisions as to Council of India.)

(1) The provision in Section six of the principal Act which prescribed the quorum for meetings of the Council of shall cease to have effect, and the Secretary of State May provide for a quorum by such directions as he may issue in this behalf.

(2) The provision in section eight of the principal Act which requires weekly meetings of the Council of India shall cease to have effect.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "may" ["Secretary of State may"], and insert instead thereof the word "shall."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Colonel YATE: The word "shall" is here inserted, but does that agree with the Second Schedule in the paragraph on Section 6, where the word "may" is still retained?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think any consequential alteration is necessary in the Schedule.

Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the following new Sub-section:
(2) The provision in Section eight of the principal Act relating to meetings of the Council of India shall have effect as though 'month' were substituted for 'week.'
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Colonel YATE: Do the words "at least" stand fast?

Mr. MONTAGU: The words "at least" remain in. I hope it will not be thought that the Council of India is only going to meet once a month. It will have to meet whenever financial matters are under consideration, which will be far more often than that.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 33 —(Control of Secretary of State.)

The Secretary of State in Council may, not withstanding anything in the. principal Act, by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence, direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in Council, by the principal Act, or otherwise, in such manner as may appear necessary or expedient in order to give effect to the purposes of this Act.

Any other rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next thirty days on which the House has sat after the rules are laid before it praying that the rules or any of them may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rules or any of them, and those rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.

CLAUSE 35.—(High Commissioner for India.)

His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the appointment of a High Commissioner for India in the United Kingdom, and for his pay, powers, duties, and conditions of employment; and the Order may further provide for delegating to the High Commissioner any of the powers previously exercised by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
State in Council, whether under the principal Act or otherwise in relation to making contracts, and may prescribe the conditions under which he shall act on behalf of the Governor-General in Council or any local government.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "his pay "and insert instead thereof the words "the pay pension."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a privilege Amendment, as it adds to the charges out of the revenue.

Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask the House to waive their privilege on this Amendment. We want to appoint a High Commissioner, and the Bill gives us power to pay him, but during the passage of the Bill through this House no provision was made for a pension.

Lords Amendment: After the word "employment" insert the words "of the high Commissioner and of his assistants.

"—Agreed to:

CLAUSE 41. —(Statutory Commission)

(1) At the expiration of ten years after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall submit for the approval of both Houses of Parliament the names of persons to act as a Commission for the purposes of this Section.

(2) The persons whose names are so submitted, subject to the approval of, and to any alterations made, by Parliament shall be a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the working of the system of government the growth of education. and the development of representative institutions, in British India, and matters connected therewith, and the Commission shall report as to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible government, or to extend, modify, or restrict the degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the question whether the establishment id second chambers of time local legislatures is or is not desirable.

(3) The Commission shall also inquire into and report on any other matter affecting British India and the provinces which may be referred to the Commission by the Secretary of State.

Leave out the words "both Houses of Parliament "and- insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "subject to the approval of and to any
alteration made by Parliament" and insert instead thereof the words "if approved by His Majesty."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "the Secretary of State "and insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 44.—(Power to Make Rules.)

(3) Any Rules to which this Section applies shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament se, soon ass may be after they are Made and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next thirty days on which that House has sat after the Rules are laid before it praying that the Rules or any of them may be annulled, Ws Majesty in Council may annul the Rules or any of them, and those Rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder:

CLAUSE 45.—(Amendments of Principal Act to Carry Act into Effect, etc)

The Amendments set out in Parts I. and II. of the Second Schedule to this Act, being Amendments to incorporate the provisions of this Act in the principal Act, arid further Amendments consequential on or arising out of those provisions, shall be made in the principal Act, and any question of interpretation shall be settled by reference to the principal Act as so amended. The provisions of the principal Act specified in Part III. of that Schedule, being

SECOND SCHEDULE.


PART I.


The provisions of this Act set out in the first column of the following table shall be incorporated in the principal Act in the manner shown in the second. column of that table, subject to the modifications specified in the third column. of that table:


TABLE.


Provision of Act.
Place and Method of Incorporation in the Principal Act.
Modifications


Section 10
To be inserted as a new Section (80A) after s. 89.
"This Act" to be substituted for "the principal Act"; "the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1919," to be substituted for the commencement of this Act" in Sub-section (3).


Sections HO, 38, 39, and 40
To be inserted as new Sections (96B, 96C, 96D, and 96E) after Suction 96A, constituting a new Part (VII.A) after Part VII.
"This Act" to be substituted for "the principal Act," and "the Government of India Act, 1919," to be substituted for "this Act."

provisions which are obsolete or unnecessary, or which require amendment in detail, are hereby repealed or modified, and shall be dealt with, in the manner shown in the second column of that Schedule.

Lords Amendment Insert the following Sub-section:
(2) Every enactment and word which is directed by the Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1916, or by this Section and the Second Schedule to this Act, to be substitute-I for or added to any portion of the Government of India Act, 1915, shall form part of the Government of India Act, 1015, in the place assigned to it by the Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1916, or that Schedule; and the Government of India Act, 1915, and all Acts, including this Act, which refer thereto, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the said enactment or word had been enacted in the Government of India Act, 1915, in She place so assigned, and, where it is substituted for another enactment or word, had been so enacted in lieu of that enactment or word.
A copy of the Government of India Act, 1915, with the Amendments, whether by way of substitution, addition, or emission, required by the Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1916, and by this Section and t be Second Schedule to this Act, shall be prepared and. certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printer shall print, in accordance with the copy so certified, all copies of the Government of India Act, 1915, which are printed after the passing- of this Act, and the Government of India Act, 1915, as so amended, may be cited as the "Government of India Act.
Sub-section (3) of Section eight of the Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1916, is hereby repealed.

—Agreed to.

PART II.

The provisions of the principal Act specified in the first column of this table shall be amended in the manner shown in the second column.

TABLE.


Section of Act.
Amendment.

2
In Sub-section (2) "or rules made thereunder" shall be inserted after "this Act."



The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (3);



"(3) The salary of the Secretary of State shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the salaries of his under-secretaries and any other expenses of his Department may be paid out of the revenues of India or out of moneys provided by Parliament."


3 (1)
"eight" shall be substituted for "ten," and "twelve" shall be substituted for "fourteen," and the following words shall be inserted at the end of the Subsection:



"Provided that the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the Council at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, shall not be affected by this provision."


3 (3)
"one-half" shall be substituted for "nine," and "India" shall be substituted for "British India."


3 (4)
"live years" shall be substituted for "seven years," and the following words shall be inserted at the end of the Sub-section:"



"Provided that the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the Council at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, shall not be affected by this provision."


8
The words "but one such meeting at least shall be held in every week" shall be omitted.


30
After Sub-section (1) the following Sub-section shall be inserted:



"(1a) A local government may on behalf and in the name of the Secretary of State in Council raise money on the security of revenues allocated to it under this Act, and make proper assurances for that purpose, and rules made under this Act may provide for the conditions under which this power shall be exercisable."


69
"Indian legislature" shall be substituted for "Governor-General in Legislative Council."


76
In Sub-section (1) following proviso shall be substituted for the existing proviso:



"Provided that the number of members so nominated or elected shall not, in the case of the legislative council of a lieutenant-governor, exceed one hundred."

Section Of Act.
Amendment.


95
Before "offices" wherever that word occurs, before "officers," and before "promotions" where it occurs for the second time, there shall be inserted "military."

PART III.

Section of Act.
How dealt with.


13 (1)
"or sending" shall be substituted for "or recording"


16
To be omitted.


42
"and signifies his intended absence to the Council" and "civil" shall be omitted.


45 (2)
To be omitted.


51
"and signifies his intended absence to the Council" shall be omitted.


54 (3)
To be omitted.


55 (1)
In paragraph (b) after "illness or otherwise" there shall be inserted." and for supplying a vacancy until it is permanently filled '


65
In Sub-section (1) (b) "airmen" shall be inserted after "soldiers"

Lords Amendments: In Part I., in paragraph on Section 10, after the word "Act "["commencement of this Act"] insert the words "and 'such first-mentioned Act' to be substituted for that Act.'"—Agreed. to.

In paragraph on Sections 36, 38, 39, and 40, after the word "Act" ["this Act"], insert the words "except in 6ection forty." —Agreed to.

In Part II., in paragraph on Section 3 (1), leave out the words "the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the Council at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, shall not be affected by this provision," and insert instead thereof the words
the council as constituted at the time of the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, shall not be affected by this provision, but to fresh appointment or re-appointment thereto shall be made in excess of the maximum prescribed by this provision.

—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 3 (4) leave out the words 'shall not be affected by this provision "and insert instead thereof the words "shall be the same as though that Act had not been passed."—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 8, leave out the words "but one such meeting at least shall be held in very week," and insert instead thereof the words "for week there shall he substituted month."—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 30, at end, insert the words "in Sub-section (2), Subsection (1) of this. Section shall be substituted for tins Section."—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 69, at end, insert the words "Council' shall be inserted after 'His Majesty' and 'through the Secretary of State in Council' shall be omitted." — Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 76, after (1), insert the words "Section shall be substituted for Act and the."—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 95, at end, insert the words "Section 964 of this Act 'shall be substituted for the last foregoing Section."—Agreed to.

In Part III., in paragraph on Section 13 (1), leave out the words 'or sending" shall be substituted for ` or recording."—Agreed to.

in paragraph on Section 42, leave out the words "and civil."—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 51, after the word, "Council," insert the words "and eivil"—Agreed to.

In paragraph on Section 65, at end, insert the words "and 'or the Air Force Act" shall be inserted after the Army Act."—Agreed to.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
The Amendments made by the House of Lords are of a drafting character, and are intended to remove small technical doubts or defects which disclose themselves on an examination of the Bill. Shortly their effect is, firstly, to make it clear that county councils as public library authorities will possess borrowing powers similar to those possessed by all other library authorities; secondly, to put all other library authorities; secondly, to put an area which has established a public library under a local Act and not under the Public Libraries Act in Substantially the same position as an area which has established a library under the Public Libraries Acts, and, thirdly, to remove all doubt whether the term "borough" includes a metropolitan borough.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment is a privilege Amendment, as it proposes a charge on the rates.

Mr. LEWIS: I move that the privilege be waived in this case.

NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

Mr. HOGGE: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what is the general effect of these Amendments?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): There are no Amendments of substance. They are all drafting Amendments to carry out the understanding given on Report.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): May I say that with one exception the Amendments are Amendments to bring the Irish Bill into line with the English Bill. No substantial change is suggested. That exception occurs in the Schedule in connection with the constitution of the council. As originally proposed, on its first constitution, the council is to be composed of four persons appointed by the Chief Secretary and six persons appointed by the Chief Secretary after consultation with such associations or organised bodies of nurses or matrons who represent that they desire to be consulted in the matter. The Lords have made four persons into six, arid the six persons have been raised to nine. By an oversight, however, a consequential Amendment altering the total of ten to fifteen was not made. Therefore it will be necessary, if this House decides to agree with the Lords Amendments, that I should move a consequential Amendment repairing that oversight.

SCHEDULE

(Constitution of Council.)

1. The Council shall consist of ten members.

Consequential Amendment made; Leave out the word "ten," and insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."—[Mr. Denis Henry.]

NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOT- LAND) BILL

INCREASE OF RENT (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read

Sir GORDON HEWARD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This measure has been suggested by the learned judges in the County courts, and it has been passed through all its stages in another place. It is a Bill designed to meet a particular emergency which has arisen because orders for the eviction of tenants are frequently being made in cases where the tenant has no alternative accommodation, and it is strongly felt that this emergency must be dealt with before Christmas, and consequently before this House is prorogued. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, under the law as it now stands, if the tenant pays his rent and observes the conditions of his lease, he cannot be evicted except upon certain specific grounds, and they are set out in the Acts of Parliament. That is another way of saying that upon those grounds, if they arise, he may be evicted, and those grounds are three in number—firstly, that the tenant has permitted waste, or is guilty of a nuisance; secondly, that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord or by some other person in his employ; and, thirdly, some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the court making the order.
Those grounds have been further limited in one respect. In the case of the request by the landlord for possession it has been provided by the amending Act that if the landlord requires the reversion after September, 1917, the order could only be made if after considering all the circumstances of the case, including
especially the alternative accommodation available, the Court considers it reasonable to make the order. The existing Acts are, therefore, framed in such a way that, except in the case of post-1917 landlords, the court has practically no discretion to refuse an order for possession if one or other of those specific grounds be established. In these circumstances, the continued shortage of housing accommodation has, in fact, resulted in a very large number of applications being made for orders for possession. For example, from January to November of this year, in one County Court alone, there were no fewer that 329 applications and the great majority of them were upon the second ground, namely, that the landlord required in the circumstances prescribed by the Act, possession for himself. The fact that the Court has no discretion to refuse an order if it is proved that the landlord required possession for any of the purposes named in the Statute, has led to orders being made in many cases, where it is strictly true to say that the tenant has no available accommodation at all. The result is what might be expected, and evictions have given rise to considerable and increasing discontent, and it is felt that at this period of the year and as the House is about to rise, it is necessary to deal with the matter by legislation.
Under the present Bill, which if it is enacted, will take the place of all the provisions of the existing Increase of Rent (Restrictions) Acts relating to orders for possession, the grounds on which an order for possession may be made are not substantially varied except in one respect. Instead of saying in the vague language of the existing law some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court making such an order, it is especially provided that the order may be made where the tenant by sub-letting the dwelling-house or any part thereof or by taking in lodgers is making a profit which having regard to the rent paid by the tenant is unreasonable, and the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order. I think the House will agree that it would be intolerable on the one hand that the rent as between the landlord and tenant should be kept down as prescribed by the Act, and none the less the tenant by sub-letting should be making a considerable profit and putting it into his own pocket.
Except for that specific provision the grounds are not varied, but—and this is
the importance of the measure—a much wider discretion is given to the Court in all cases, and it is a definite instruction to the Court in the case of what I will call landlords' applications, to examine all the circumstances of the case, and in particular the alternative accommodation available for the tenants. The effect will be that if no alternative accommodation is in fact available, the Court will only be able to make an order for possession if the circumstances are quite exceptional. In order to meet the immediate emergency, the Bill further enables orders which have been made before the passing of the Act, but which have not been executed, to be set aside if they cannot be brought within the terms of the Bill, and further power is taken in cases for what I call landlord's possession to suspend the operation of an order on such terms as the payment of rent or mesne profits and otherwise as the Court thinks reasonable. Those are the simple and modest provisions of this measure. It is, in the strictest sense of the word, an emergency measure. It has passed through all its stages in another House, and I hope that this House at this period of the year, and in view of the fact that we are soon to rise, will think it right to pass the measure through all its stages to-day.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved: "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Orders for Possession.)

(1) After the passing of this Act no Order or judgment for the recovery of possession a dwelling-house to which the Increase of Rent, etc., Act of 1913 (hereinafter called the principal Act) or any of the Acts amending the same applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given, so long the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by the principal Act or any of the Acts amending the same and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, unless—

(a) the tenant has committed waste or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, and the Court considers it reasonable to make such an Order or give such judgment; or
(b)the tenant by sob-letting the dwelling house or any part thereof or by taking is lodgers is making a profit which, having regard to the rent paid by the tenant, is
956
unreasonable, and the Court considers it reasonable to make such an Order or give such. judgment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. BUTCHER: Might I ask the exact effect of paragraph (b), where it says that "the Court may, where it considers it reasonable, make an order for possession if the tenant by sub-letting the dwelling-house or any part thereof, or by taking in lodgers, is making a profit which, having regard to the rent paid by the tenant, is unreasonable? Is that unreasonable profit taken to cover the actual rent paid and the profit made by taking in lodgers? Supposing a man pays £10 a year and sub-lets to get £30 or £40 per year, and £10 is attributed to the rent and £20 to other reasons, is he allowed to make a profit out of the actual rent that he receives? Is he able, while he gets the house at a small rent, to let it out to others for a largely increased rent? It seems to me that in a case like that the landlord ought to be allowed to get possession for other people. I should, therefore, like a little snore explanation of the Clause.

Sir G. HEWART: Paragraph (b), like paragraphs (a) and (c), ends with the words "and the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment." In other words, the method is to give the Court a discretion in each case. This particular paragraph is in substitution for the existing general provision, and it provides that an order may be made where
the tenant by subletting the dwelling-house or any part thereof, or by taking in lodgers, is making a profit which, having regard to the rent paid by the tenant, is unreasonable.
It is quite true that there is no definition of "unreasonable profits," but I should imagine that in any case where a tenant by sub-letting was making any substantial profit over and above the rent that he was paying to the landlord the County Court judge would say that was never the object of the legislation, and would therefore make the order.

Clause 2 (Short Title, Construction and Repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

REGIMENTAL DEBTS (DEPOSIT OF WILLS—SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
6.0 P.M.
I can explain in a very few sentences the intention of this very modest measure which has passed through its 6.0 P.M. various stages in another place. The object of the Bill is to overcome a certain difficulty which has been found to operate in connection with the working of the Regimental Debts Act of 1893. Under Section 21 of that Act a soldier's will, under special circumstances which I need not detail, has to be deposited in the Commissary Court at Edinburgh, and under that Act there are certain duties for the preservation and care which devolve upon that Court in connection with the document. It sometimes happens, however, that while the document is deposited with the Commissary Court it is required for the purpose of completing title to the hereditable, or, what is called on this side of the water the real, estate, with which the will deals. The terms of the Section to which I have referred prevent the Commissary Clerk parting with the original document, and therefore it becomes impossible in many cases to complete the title to the hereditable property in which the soldier may have been interested and in which his relatives are now interested. The present Bill therefore authorised, under due safeguards, the surrender of the document by the Commissary Clerk for the purpose of completing the title to the hereditable estate or securing confirmation—what is known on this side of the water as probate— to moveable estate. That is done under suitable safeguards under Clause I which is the operative Clause of the Bill. The need for this Bill is urgent. At the present time, I am informed, the completion of title to real property, hereditable property, is being held up in a number of cases by reason of this disability which is imposed by the old Act upon the Commissary Clerk parting with the original document, and it is anticipated, unless legislative effect be given at an early date to these proposals, that litigation will ensue at the instance of the relatives of a soldier concerned in order to have his estate made available to them. It is very desirable to avoid that contingency, and in these cir-
cumstances I suggest that this Bill, the object of which, I am sure, will commend itself to any hon. Member who has interested himself in it, might not only be given its Second Reading, but might be allowed to pass through all its stages.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Munro.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Electricity (Supply) Bill,

Housing (Additional Powers) Bill,

Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council Bill,

Agriculture (Councils, etc.) Bill (changed to "Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Bill"), with Amendments.

St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways Bill[Lords,]without Amendment.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Mon day next, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL.

Changed from Agriculture (Councils, Etc.)Bill.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Duties and Powers of Agricultural Advisory Committee.)

The Agricultural Advisory Committee shall advise the Board with respect to all matters and questions submitted to them in relation to the exercise by the Board a any powers or duties which do not relate to the industry of fishing,
and shall be at liberty to make recommendations to the Board in relation to other matters affecting agriculture or other rural industries.

Lords Amendment: After the word "Committee," insert the words "when requested."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
If hon. Members read the Clause, they will see that the words are redundant.

CLAUSE 7.—(Constitution of Committees.)

Lords Amendment: Insert following new Sub-section:
5. Any scheme under this section may provide for the payment as part of the expenses of the agricultural committee of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of members of the committee or of any sub-committee of the committee

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a privilege Amendment, because it imposes a charge upon the rates.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am aware that this is a privilege Amendment, but I move that we waive our privilege and agree with the Lords Amendment. I may say, perhaps, in explanation that this Amendment will enable the travelling expenses and subsistence allowances of members of county agricultural committee to be paid out of the rates. An Amendment to this effect was moved in Committee. I was not in a position to accept it there, but. I undertook that I would consider the matter before Report. Between Committee and Report an arrangement was made with the Ministry of Health and also with the various Members interested in the question that an Amendment on these lines should be inserted, but I was unable to insert it on Report, because it is beyond our power on the Report stage of a Bill to insert a financial Amendment. This Amendment, therefore, has now been inserted in another place. Although technically it does invade the privilege of this House, inasmuch as it is an Amendment agreed to by all parties I move that we agree with the Lords Amendment and waive our privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made.

FIRST SCHEDULE

(Composition of Councils and Committees.)

(1) The Council of Agriculture for England shall consist of the following members:—

(b) Six members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen," and insert instead thereof the words "provided that not more than three of the members shall be representatives of workmen."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words, "not more than three of the members shall he representatives of the workmen," and to insert instead thereof the words "the representatives of workmen shall be three in number."
"Not more than" may mean none or only one. I do not think that that was intended. At all events, we think that at least three should be representatives of workmen. Therefore, I move this Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords. Amendments agreed to.

Ordered, "That a. Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill."

Committee nominated of Sir A. Boscawen, Mr. Butler Mr. Hurd, and Dr. Murray.

Three to be a quorum.

To withdraw immediately. — [Sir A. Boscaven]

Orders of the Day — IRELAND.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF LORD LIEUTENANT.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House, at its rising this day do adjourn until Monday next."

Mr. MOLES: I desire to know whether, in view of the great anxiety of this House, we may have some statement concerning the reported assassination of the Viceroy of Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to the Motion that we should adjourn until Monday. Perhaps the House will look over the irregularity in this case, although it is not the subject-matter of debate.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): At one o'clock to-day, between Ashtown Station and Ashtown Park Gate in the Phœnix Park, an attempt was made upon His Excellency's life. Four bombs or hand grenades were thrown from behind a hedge. The military guard fired upon the murderers, one of whom was on the road. He was shot dead. Detective Halley was shot in the hand while attempting to discharge his
revolver. A constable on duty at the crossroads close by the scene of the outrage was also wounded by gunfire. The rest of the murderers, who discharged shots from behind the hedge, escaped. The deal murderer has been identified. In his possession were found two revolvers.
I feel sure that the House and the country will be glad to hear that His Excellency escaped uninjured, and that they will extend their sympathy to the men who were wounded while doing their duty.

Whereupon MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the, House of this day.

Adjourned at. Twenty-four minutes after Six o'clock.